05-03-2009, 03:49 PM
It appears to simple little ole me to apply specifically in that case to race and the 14th but also to marriage as a basic right based upon it's essential need as part of procreation. Obviously procreation can be achieved without marriage, but I think most agree that children are normally best raised in a traditional family(exceptions of course). Also obvious is that marriage can be achieved without the purpose of procreation. I think the intent was that the nation's and therefore the courts interest in marriage as a basic right was it's benefit to society as part of procreation, which it saw as necessary. Point being that the court may well not see marriage as a basic right outside the context of procreation which is outside the natural realm of same sex relationships.
LOVING v. VIRGINIA excerpt:
These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 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. Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). (Skinner v. Oklahoma excerpt added by oink: We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.) See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). 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 discriminations. 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.
Pua`a
S. FL
Big Islander to be.
LOVING v. VIRGINIA excerpt:
These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 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. Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). (Skinner v. Oklahoma excerpt added by oink: We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.) See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). 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 discriminations. 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.
Pua`a
S. FL
Big Islander to be.
Pua`a
S. FL
Big Islander to be.
S. FL
Big Islander to be.