What is to prevent any 'abused' group from following the Gay marriage example?

[Lincoln]

Regardless of anyone's views on gay marriage we must face one inevitable outcome if the marriages are allowed to stand even though in violation of current local laws. The justification is that "equality under the law" trumps the lesser laws which are therefore unconstitutional, null and void.

Actually, I personally agree with that concept and it is enforced by several of this nation's founders. The whole idea of the constitution and the Bill of Rights was to protect the people from a government that may someday be out of control and deny basic human rights by force of new laws. But the basic rights DO supercede the lesser laws and they in fact MAY be violated in favour of the supreme law of the land as it is spelled out in the US and State constitutions.

So now we have various groups that have been saying this for years (militias and gun owners for example). On what basis are these groups to be restrained now? If I am pulled over for a traffic ticket I can say that my rights are being violated and cite various parts of the constitution but the law says "too bad". Only after years of jangling in the courts can I hope to have my complaint heard.

In the instance of gay marriages public officials have violated the 'lesser laws' and now claim they acted lawfully. It seems like this opens up a huge can of worms. Can we put them back in the can or should we just allow everyone to follow the constitutuion as they see fit and as they interpret it? Please don't argue here about the pros and cons of gay marriage as that is not the topic of this thread.

[DinoDoc]

It depends on how quickly the local officials get slapped down. If thier actions are allowed to stand, I expect it to happen quite often.

[GePap]

On what basis are these groups to be restrained now?

Becuase they are groups, not individuals.

If the government has the right and ability to regulate civl marriage (ie, stating that two people have a commitment to each other and rights vis a vi each other other individual in society lack), then it has to find compelling reasons to state that certain individual can't participate in this system. There is really no compelling interest to say gays can not marry.

The state would have a better case staing convicted felons could not get married after coming out of prison than to say gays can't marry.

[Ben Kenobi]

If the government has the right and ability to regulate civil marriage

If they have this right, then they also have a right to deny marriage to whomever they choose.

then it has to find compelling reasons to state that certain individual can't participate in this system.

But all individuals have access to the system. No individual is prevented from getting married.

[Sava]

slavery was once the law of the land too

gay-haters

if there's a hell, those who hate are going to burn in it

[Alexander's Horse]

Can someone explain to me why a country which calls itself the "land of the free" has such a conformist streak on issues like marriage?

[Lawrence of Arabia]

BoR is stupid, because it implies that those are the only rights allowed to an individual, which is ridiculous.

[Asher]

Insecurity. Same reason for the massive military.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
If they have this right, then they also have a right to deny marriage to whomever they choose.

Lets stop the evil muslims and blacks from gettign married and the benefits of benig married Im with you ben

[Elok]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
BoR is stupid, because it implies that those are the only rights allowed to an individual, which is ridiculous.

Uh, "allowed" by who? Other than the bill of rights, I mean.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Can someone explain to me why a country which calls itself the "land of the free" has such a conformist streak on issues like marriage?

Does the land of Oz allow governments to pick and choose which laws they will and will not follow?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
If they have this right, then they also have a right to deny marriage to whomever they choose.

No, we in the U.S. have an equal protection ammendment, see?

[Wittlich]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Can someone explain to me why a country which calls itself the "land of the free" has such a conformist streak on issues like marriage?

Well, simply put, I can sum it up in one word:

Puritans.

For example: Take for instance the birth of Capitalism in America. Puritans wanted to work in a calling (to be in grace with God). We today are forced to (work) - though hardly anyone today would say that they're working to ensure their entrance into heaven (except possibly for the clergy). It's inbred into the American psyche.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Lincoln, quite right. While I am definitely in favor of homosexual marriage rights, I see this as perhaps going forward in a scary way. A precedent may be set that if certain localities don't agree with a law they can try to ignore it and wait for it to be vindicated by the courts. The nullification argument, which we though was struck down by Andy Jackson and the Civil War seems to be back... and it could be a very scary thing (imagine a city that decides the assault weapons ban is violating the 2nd amendment, etc).

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
But all individuals have access to the system. No individual is prevented from getting married.

What about hermaphrodites?