As Supreme Court term begins, prospect of a gay-marriage ruling looms large


The 10th edition of the Supreme Court under Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. begins work Monday with the prospect of a monumental ruling for gay rights that could serve as a surprising legacy of an otherwise increasingly conservative court.


There is no right to marriage for anyone in the Constitution. From a strict Constitutional interpretation (this may or may not be moral, and if so, I don’t know to what degree) the states should decide marriage laws under the plenary powers clause and the 10th Amendment.

It may be even a stretch for Justice Kennedy to declare so-called gay “marriage” a right.



[SIGN]Equality at last![/SIGN]


A right does not have to be explicitly enumerated within the text of the constitution to be protected by it. In the words of the 9th ammentment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

Furthermore, the due process clause of the 5th and 14th amendments states that no person can be deprived of “…life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…” and the term liberty has been understood to include all of a persons fundamental rights, whether they are explicitly enumerated or not. In the words of the decision of Bolling v, Sharpe:

Although the Court has not assumed to define ‘liberty’ with any great precision, that term is not confined to mere freedom from bodily restraint. Liberty under law extends to the full range of conduct which the individual is free to pursue, and it cannot be restricted except for a proper governmental objective.


Agreed. On the other hand, no one is denied the right to same-gender marriage. The UCC Church does it, IIRC. So does the typical Universal Unitarian Church, AFAIK. And there may be others, as well. :shrug:



Your comments are correct.

I think many people misinterpret the Constitution. It was written to limit the power of government - not to limit the power of individuals.


I am rather pessimistic on this issue so I need to admit that up front.

That said, I wouldn’t doubt it if the Supreme Court doesn’t try to foist “gay marriage” upon the entire nation. If that happens I guarantee I will weep over it.


Exactly. That’s why I have no problem (as a citizen) if the UCC or UU want to marry gays.
Its just, as a Christian, same-gender is a contradiction in terms. therefore, the government ought to get out of the marriage business.



Obama lackeys and cronies will do everything they can to further ruin this country.


Blessed are you who weep now, for you shall laugh.


Marriage is considered a natural right. Otherwise States could say Catholics can’t marry protestants or blacks can’t marry whites.


The government can’t get outta the marriage business.
How will non-religious people get married?
Plus, marriage is a legal contract.



Loving v. Virginia was a Supreme Court Case that held

“Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival… To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.”

You will hear it quoted a lot if the SCOTUS hears any of the gay marriage cases.


A freedom and right isn’t “foisted” on people.
No one is forcing you to marry someone of the same sex.

And just an fyi…seeing as same-sex marriage does concretely, legally and factually exist in this country, it’s correct to write it without the “apostrophes” as you have it-- as if it is still an alleged figment of someone’s imagination.



Why would they want to? Marriage is a religious sacrament/rite/ordinance.

It is only a legal contract because government is involved. If government gets out, the legal contract goes away. Marriage is blessing from God, not a legal contract.



As I said, “same-gender marriage” is a contradiction in terms, an oxymoron.



The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

And yet the Court managed to deny a whole class of people the right to life in its Roe v Wade decision. The right to life is even more basic than the right to marriage. So I’m sure the Court can be creative enough, if it wishes, to discover embedded in the Constitution, a heretofore entirely undiscovered right to same sex marriage.

Loving v Virginia makes no reference to same sex marriage, and its authors would be quite surprised to find that their ruling provides that right. Likewise, the authors of the 14th Amendment would be astonished to find that their amendment makes same sex marriage a constitutional right.

But no matter, what was not there at the original writing can be made to magically appear through the magic of Constitutional interpretation.


The 10th withers before Article IV as well as the 14th Amendment.


The 10th withers before Article IV as well as the 14th Amendment. You can’t use the 10th as an end-run around the full faith and credit and due process clauses. “…nor prohibited…” remember?


This may be the issue on which “same-gender marriage” stands or falls. If it stands, then states should be encouraged to end it’s endorsement of marriage, eliminating the full faith and credit argument.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit