Running Deer wrote on Nov 6^th, 2009 at 10:53pm:


Obviously it's not an identical argument.  One man and one woman.  It's entirely different than two differing races.

In the Constitution of the United States, not anywhere, in its amendments or in the actual text, does in mention anything about gay marriage and gay couples' rights. This is not a federal constitutional issue, nor should it be made into one.
The term itself "gay marriage" is one of an unsure background; in the United States Courts, marriage is defined as "a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife," as quoted from the United States Code, made available by the US House of Representatives. Therefore, the argument that "you can marry whoever you want," is false. Marriage, as proven above, is only the union between a man and a woman. There is no marriage between a man and a man, which we are dubbing "gay marriage." However, the definition of "marriage" has nothing to do with interracial marriage, so the argument about "no good argument about gay marriage that makes it different from interracial marriage," yes, there is, there is nothing mentioned about interracial marriage, however, marriage is specifically stated as "the union between a man and a woman," which destroys gay marriage.

Quote:


Nowhere does the Constitution mention interracial marriage or interracial couples' rights.

Legally marriage is a contract that is sanctioned by one of the 50 states or some other political entitiy like a national govt other than the US.  So where is the constitutional problem?  Full faith and credit.

You see the founders rightly saw that contracts of all types could become a problem if say Virginia refused to enforce a contract entered into in Deleware for instance.  The idea of full faith and credit was to make it clear that if you enter into a contract in one state that contract is valid in all.  This is a good thing.

I was married in NH and I am married in Texas without having to go through the process of applying for a new license and doing the ceremony again.  Furthermore, when I visit my brother in Oklahoma I am still married.  So what about the guys in Mass who are two men who enter into the same type of contract that my wife and I entered into in NH?  Are they married in Texas where marriage is limited to man and woman?  The USC says that they are.

This is why it is a federal issue that has to be decided by a constitutional amendment.

gary