Constitutionality of Banning Same-Sex Marriage | 16 comments (16 topical, 0 hidden)
Expand please? (none / 0)

Would you please expand your argument further?

I would like to read more about why you made this conclusion.

by DemonicBunny3po on 06/12/2009 02:21:22 PM EST

[ Parent ]
glad to explain (none / 0)
Ex Post facto law: a law that makes something illegal that was legal before.  Do I really need to explain this one?  
Bill of attainder:  a law that denies certain groups certain rights.  again, self explanitory.  
now for the contracts, a marriage is a contract, right?  So if you ban same-sex marriage, you ban the making of that certain contract between two people of the same sex.  This is unconstitutional.  The government is not allowed to impair the obligation of contracts.

by birdboy1 on 06/12/2009 07:16:44 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Your argument seems good... (none / 0)

But, I think your argument is only good if the government tried to appeal the marriages already made, not for those not yet made.

In fact, there was a court case not too long ago that help prop 8, but said the marriages made while legal where still valid.

Sorry if I am not seeing how your argument prevents the banning of people getting a same-sex marriage.

by DemonicBunny3po on 06/14/2009 06:37:37 PM EST

[ Parent ]
you're right (none / 0)
on impairing the obligation of contracts: that is only on the existing marriages.  But the ex post facto law is not allowed to be passed, and banning same sex marriage is still a bill of attainder

by birdboy1 on 06/14/2009 09:38:55 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Constitutionality of Banning Same-Sex Marriage | 16 comments (16 topical, 0 hidden)