Same sex marriage is already a constitutional protected unalienable right

[Lemon law]

No No NO, Adam an Eve or Linda and Steve can marry within the austpices of a Catholic, Protestant, or even a Muslim Mosque. With the blessling of their respective religions.

But when the church marriage cerimony is over, it still not legally acceptably until its recorded as legal with civil and not church authorities.

 

[nehalem256]

The OP may have a point....

From wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_assembly

Freedom of Assembly, sometimes used interchangeably with the freedom of association, is the individual right to come together and collectively express, promote, pursue and defend common interests.[1] The right to freedom of association is recognized as a human right, political right, and civil liberty.


If you consider a marriage an association...

It always pains me when this happens, but I agree with cybrsage about the government getting out of the marriage business.

There is no right to have the government recognize your association.

 

[paperfist]

You have the right to assemble.



It's protected from the Federal Government, they shall make NO LAW infringing upon it. DOMA was unconstitutional and all of those who signed on should be brought up on charges for passing such unconstitutional non-sense in legislature.

The 10th is a little harder to get around and would require we delve into more philosophical reasoning which IMO is the largest indication that it should be left TO THE PEOPLE to decide what they want to do with their lives, in terms of "marriage"(I'm going to use it in quotes at times because I mean the entirety of the concept in all forms), because philosophical or subjective things should not be law. As such I see such "rights" skipped over being given to the State and directly given to us, the people.

Freedom to assemble as in to protest or gang bang, neither of which has anything to do with marriage...

 

[LumbergTech]

Freedom to assemble as in to protest or gang bang, neither of which has anything to do with marriage...

I think the idea is that the government is not supposed to determine the validity of associations that people form. AKA they shouldn't be in the marriage business in the first place. So it doesn't necessarily give them the right to be "recognized" by the government, but it makes it illegal for the government to create laws interfering with their legal associations. These are not criminal organizations, but people attempting to exercise the same rights that anyone has. They marry another person and therefore exercise their right of freedom of association. It doesn't give them the right to force a minister who doesn't agree with them to marry them, it gives them the right to be married in the eyes of their community who chooses to accept it. The rights that currently come with marriage, which is what they are fighting for, should come from their freedom of association and marriage should not be something the government is involved in.

 

[Pray To Jesus]

lol k

 

[schneiderguy]

The 10th amendment DOES NOT BIND THE STATES. It only binds the federal government. None of the 1st 10 amendment bind the states. What the state should do and what the constitution requires is very different.

Bullshit. Most of the Bill of Rights is incorporated against the states.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights

 

[nehalem256]

I think the idea is that the government is not supposed to determine the validity of associations that people form. AKA they shouldn't be in the marriage business in the first place. So it doesn't necessarily give them the right to be "recognized" by the government, but it makes it illegal for the government to create laws interfering with their legal associations. These are not criminal organizations, but people attempting to exercise the same rights that anyone has. They marry another person and therefore exercise their right of freedom of association. It doesn't give them the right to force a minister who doesn't agree with them to marry them, it gives them the right to be married in the eyes of their community who chooses to accept it. The rights that currently come with marriage, which is what they are fighting for, should come from their freedom of association and marriage should not be something the government is involved in.

(1) In order for the government to grant them benefits it has to confer validity on their association.

(2) If you want the government to grant people benefits then you want them involved. You cannot complain about the government being involved when you demanded they do so.