All marriage is unconstitutional

[TrogL]

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~75~1641039,00.html

The debate about the definition of marriage is based on the states' long-standing power to license, conduct and regulate marriages. We know that power has always been presumed constitutional. But that may have ended 32 years ago without notice.

...

But decades later, in Loving vs. Virginia (1967), the Supreme Court held that a Virginia law barring interracial marriage was unconstitutional.

:bounce::bounce::bounce:

We can all live in sin!!

[ewagner]

1. Marriage is an institution

...and I have been a committed inmate in that institution for 29 years!

[opihimoimoi]

4. Me too, but for only 25 years

Am I living in sin???

Come, we go look.

[RobertSeattle]

2. Just think if talk radio had been big 32 years ago...

"Allowing interracial marriage will harm the institution of marriage blah blah blah"

[CO Liberal]

3. They Had a Form of Talk Radio 32 Years Ago

It was called KKK and John Birch Society meetings.

:-)

[opihimoimoi]

5. They should come Hawaii. Interacial marriages occur more frequently

than anything else.

I got 3 blood lines, my wife 6. Many others have 6 or more. Its alright, we will survive, our kids look great.

[Nikia]

6. Marriage is a legal contract

For that reason, it would be difficult to get the state out of marriage. I suppose that you could have a marriage type contract that could be made between any two adults. Individual religions have always had different requirements for marriage, however, and may refuse to marry anyone.

[TreasonousBastard]

7. I suppose...

you could have a marriage contract enforcable in state courts, similar to prenup agreements. And, it would be the only contract recognized by the state for such things as benefits, survivors rights, etc.

Then should anyone want to, they could get married in the religious rite of their choice, but just being married by a clergy would not automatically be recognized by the state.

Confusion would reign supreme, but fat chance of it happening anyway.

[ewagner]

8. Also my take on it n/t

[Clete]

9. Well, if I had my way,

there wouldn't be any marriage. Families would be matriarchal with children living with their birth mother and grandmother and their brothers and uncles. Children would carry their mother's surname. There are societies that still do this successfully.

[neebob]

12. If I had my way

Marriage would be an alternative lifestyle.

[SharonAnn]

10. In Latin American countries there is a distinction between

the civil union or marriage and the religious ceremony and institution of marriage.

We're going to Chile at the end of October for our niece's wedding. The civil ceremony will be performed on Friday, October 24th. The religious ceremony will be on Sunday, October 26th.

The only legal ceremony is the civil union.

Why can't we do that here? The civil union is what everyone could get. The only legal ceremony is the civil union. The religious ceremony is up to the religion.

[Clete]

13. Sounds like a sensible way to do things.

We could do it here it, except I can imagine all the churches hollering about "what it could lead to".

[stickdog]

11. Works for me. (NT)