From: "Anlatt the Builder" 

On Mar 20, 8:11 pm, "John D.Wentzky"
 wrote:
> Innews:46008222$0$18887$4c368faf{at}roadrunner.com,
> Dionisio  typed:
>
> > John D.Wentzky wrote:
>
> >> Attila  typed:
> >>> Exactly where does the Constitution address marriage laws?  Please
> >>> be specific, with quotes.
>
> >> Where it says that the powers the states already reserved to
> >> themselves can not be usurped by the federal government.
>
> > Well, if no one else has jumped on this, I will:
>
> > So, Mr. Wentzky, what you seem to be saying is that in those states
> > -- yes, plural -- where the right to define marriage (or Civil Union,
> > or whatever) has been reserved by said states to cover same-sex
> > couples; You contend that the Feds can do nothing about it?
>
> If the States in question have done so legally via their own
> Constitutionally required process, such would be true.
> But, to my knowledge no state has done such to this date.
>

When a state supreme court declares that a restriction in law (such as, in
this case, the restriction of marriage to mixed-sex couples) is
unconstitutional under the state constitution, that *IS* "their own
Constitutionally required process." Courts are permitted to declare
laws unconstitutional.  It's part of the checks and balances of our
governmental system. That is exactly what happened in Massachusetts.

A further check is that the state can pass an amendment to the state
constitution that would render the original law constitutional (under the
amended constitution). This has not happened in Mass. Until and if it does,
same-sex marriage is completely, legitimately, and constitutionally legal
in that state.

A similar case occurred on the federal level when the U.S. Supreme Court
declared that laws forbidding interracial marriage where unconstitutional
under the U.S. Constitution. Loving v. Virginia, 1964. Look it up.

Do you think that marriages between people of different races are still
illegal in Virginia, because it was "only a court" that overthrew
the law?

> > (This should be fascinating.)
>
> You thought it would?
> Maybe to you it is, but to me it is child's play.

Yes, your understanding of the legal system seems to be roughly that of a
child. Why not read something, and learn?

--- BBBS/LiI v4.01 Flag