What?  You'll have to explain that first line further.

One of the things that the SC is supposed to deal with is this an issue that should be dealt with by the consitution or is it a lesser issue that the states can handle.

And you don't think this is an equal protection issue?

I think the Federal government has expanded their role over the years.

I dont want large amounts of power in the hands of a small amount of people.

So while it might be equal protection, I think that the issue doesnt raise to that level. This isnt an issue that is just part of general oppression. This is a specific issue and isnt part of a larger issue.

Marriage isn't essential to reproduction, existence or really subject to any "fairness" issue you have. 

I'm almost certain that there are only two reasons that people/government agencies oppose it:
1.  Religious beliefs/tradition
2.  Manipulation

#1 explains itself.   #2 is probably best explained by the marriage issues presented by illegal aliens marrying citizens to gain citizenship when there is no "love" interest.   The government/companies doesn't want two buddies manipulating the system so that one can be covered by the other's insurance and/or receive pensions.    It's a money issue.   CA opposes so vehemently because they're broke.

Posted by swamphawk22 on 5/30/2012 1:10:00 AM (view original):
I think the Federal government has expanded their role over the years.

I dont want large amounts of power in the hands of a small amount of people.

So while it might be equal protection, I think that the issue doesnt raise to that level. This isnt an issue that is just part of general oppression. This is a specific issue and isnt part of a larger issue.

The equal protection clause of the 14th amendment specifically applies to state laws.

See:

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

California, through Prop 8, is clearly treating people differently under the law.  It is legal to do that, but, depending on the circumstance, the state has the burden to prove that the law meets either strict, intermediate, rational basis scrutiny. If it can't do that, the law isn't Constitutional.

It could also come down to the SC finding that marriage is not a "right" that merits 14th amendment protection.

The court ruled in Loving that marriage was a right that merits 14th amendment protection.

The court ruled that interracial marriage was an issue based on 2 reasons...That the only reason that IR marraige was banned was based on maintaining white supremacy and that there was a history of oppression against blacks. As I have said before this does not seem to be present here. You seem to b emaking broad jumps in logic when applying past precedents.

I don't understand your point.

Interracial marriage bans were an element of white supremacy. OK.
There is a history of oppression against blacks.  OK.

Neither of those things preclude marriage from being a 14th amendment issue.

The court says in it's decision:

" The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men"

Posted by jrd_x on 5/30/2012 1:56:00 PM (view original):
I don't understand your point.

Interracial marriage bans were an element of white supremacy. OK.
There is a history of oppression against blacks.  OK.

Neither of those things preclude marriage from being a 14th amendment issue.

The court says in it's decision:

" The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men"

The issue becomes is making marriage opposite sex only a logical requirement or a violation of the civil rights of homosexuals.

jrd_x doesn't like to think outside of his cozy little box.  In his narrow thinking, this is a very black and white (no pun intended) issue which should be clear to all.  He seems genuinely befuddled by the fact that not everybody sees things as "clearly" as he does.  

Anybody who doesn't see it his way is "wrong".  In that way, he's very much like my wife (who is, in fact, a woman).

Posted by jrd_x on 5/30/2012 1:56:00 PM (view original):
I don't understand your point.

Interracial marriage bans were an element of white supremacy. OK.
There is a history of oppression against blacks.  OK.

Neither of those things preclude marriage from being a 14th amendment issue.

The court says in it's decision:

" The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men"

" The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men"


Tradition?   Hmmmmmm, that might be bad for the point you're trying to make. 

Posted by swamphawk22 on 5/30/2012 2:58:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/30/2012 1:56:00 PM (view original):
I don't understand your point.

Interracial marriage bans were an element of white supremacy. OK.
There is a history of oppression against blacks.  OK.

Neither of those things preclude marriage from being a 14th amendment issue.

The court says in it's decision:

" The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men"

The issue becomes is making marriage opposite sex only a logical requirement or a violation of the civil rights of homosexuals.

Why should opposite sex only be a requirement?

Because thousands of years of human culture and social norms have defined it that way.