Where is marriage in the constitution

It is not mentioned, and therefore it is not a power delegated to the federal government to regulate. For lawyers, judges and in particular, Supreme Court justices, the inquiry on this issue should end there—right where silence demands judicial inaction.

The Constitution is an elegant document that is rigid in its respect for federalism. Its framework of powers is encased in a document designed to require overwhelming support to change. So hard is it to amend the Constitution, it has only been done 27 times in our history. Since , it has been amended properly only once , and inconsequentially. Mostly, the Constitution has been amended repeatedly and improperly by the Supreme Court … a job to which it is not tasked and for which it is ill-equipped.

It is not charged with creating new rights in the Constitution. The difference is stark. In Roe v. Wade , it took over 65 pages for the court to create a right to abortion where the Constitution is silent on the issue.

The Constitution is only six pages long. A competent jurist could read it and find no mention of abortion. In Plyler v. Doe , the court found a Constitutional right for illegal aliens to receive a K free public education.

Entering into a marriage changes the legal status of both parties and gives both husband and wife new rights and obligations. One power that the states do not have, however, is that of prohibiting marriage in the absence of a valid reason.

For example, in Loving v. Virginia , the Supreme Court held that prohibiting interracial marriage is unconstitutional because it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.

Thus, establishing that marriage is a civil right. The majority of states limit people to one living husband or wife at a time and will not issue marriage licenses to anyone with a living spouse. Once an individual is married, the person must be legally released from the relationship by either death, divorce, or annulment before he or she may remarry. Other limitations on individuals include age and close relationship.

Pages in this section T The Human Rights Act Article 2: Right to life Article 3: Freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment Article 4: Freedom from slavery and forced labour Article 5: Right to liberty and security Article 6: Right to a fair trial Article 7: No punishment without law Article 8: Respect for your private and family life Article 9: Freedom of thought, belief and religion Article Freedom of expression Article Freedom of assembly and association Article Right to marry Article Protection from discrimination Article 1 of the First Protocol: Protection of property Article 2 of the First Protocol: Right to education Article 3 of the First Protocol: Right to free elections Article 1 of the Thirteenth Protocol: Abolition of the death penalty.

Article 12 protects your right to marry. See also Respect for your private and family life. Are there any restrictions to this right? Your right to marry is subject to national laws on marriage, including those that make marriage illegal between certain types of people for example, close relatives , Although the government is able to restrict the right to marry, any restrictions must not be arbitrary and not interfere with the essential principle of the right.

As of , twelve states recognize same sex marriage see map below. In several states, the state supreme courts Massachusetts, Iowa, and Connecticut found bans on same-sex marriage to violate state constitutions and in other states, legislatures moved to allow same-sex marriages.

In California, where the state legislature legalized same sex marriage only to have the voters overturn that law by initiative Amendment 8 , a federal district court found Amendment 8 to violate federal equal protection principles and the state chose not to appeal.

In , the Supreme Court in Hollingsworth v Perry dismissed an appeal by proponents of Amendment 8 for lack of standing, a decision which effectively will open the doors to gay marriage in California. In a 5 to 4 decision by Justice Kennedy, the Court said "careful consideration" had to be given to "discriminations of unusual character.

Justice Scalia, in dissent, crititicized the Court for intervening in a matter that should have been left to elected representatives and the people to decide: "The Court has cheated both sides, robbing the winners of an honest victory, and the the losers the peace that comes from a fair defeat. Whether the Full Faith and Credit Clause requires states that do not allow same-sex marriages to refuse to recognize the validity of marriages lawfully performed in another state remains an open question.

So too, the Court left open the question of whether state bans on same-sex marriage violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In , facing a circuit split, the Supreme Court resolved the question of whether state bans on gay marriage violated the Equal Protection and. In Obergefell v Hodges , a five-member Court majority concluded that the bans did indeed violate both 14 Amendment provisions. Writing for the Court, Justice Kennedy said the Framers of the Constitution "did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all of its dimensions, and so they entrusted future generations a charter protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as me we learn its meaning.

Justice Scalia ridiculed the reasoning of the Court, indicating in a footnote that he would hold his head "in a bag" if he were compelled to join the majority's opinion. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, on November 19, , ruled that the state "failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason" to deny gay persons the right to marry and that the state's prohibition on same-sex marriage violated the state's constitution.

The Court, in its fifty-page 4 to 3 ruling, gave the state legislature days to "take such action as it may deem appropriate in light of this opinion. Supreme Court.