Banning gay marriage or gay adoption unconsitutional?

I often heard that individual state's banning gay marriage or gay adoption is unconstitutional and shall be overturned. But, can anyone point to specific part of U.S. Constitution saying that?





I thought that individual states have certain rights to legistate their own laws.Banning gay marriage or gay adoption unconsitutional?
That argument has been made, based on the 14th amendment ';equal protection clause';. That was the clause used by the supreme court to strike down state laws that prohibited interracial marriages. But a gay marriage case has never been heard in federal court, so it's hard to say which way it would go.Banning gay marriage or gay adoption unconsitutional?
Well, there really isn't any amendment that directly allows or forbids gay marriage/adoption, so i suppose it would be the ninth:


';The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. ';


Meaning, just because a right isn't it the Constitution doesn't mean it's protected, like, say, the right to privacy.


I suppose that's where gay marriage/adoption would be protected...
The question can be argued under the equal protection clause.





The Equal Protection Clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, provides that ';no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws';.





The Equal Protection Clause, along with the rest of the Fourteenth Amendment, marked a great shift in American constitutionalism. Before the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Bill of Rights protected individual rights only from invasion by the federal government. After the Fourteenth Amendment was enacted, the Constitution also protected rights from abridgement by state leaders, and governments, even including some rights that arguably were not protected from abridgement by the federal government. In the wake of the Fourteenth Amendment, the states could not, among other things, deprive people of the equal protection of the laws. What exactly such a requirement means, of course, has been the subject of great debate, and the story of the Equal Protection Clause is the gradual explication of its meaning.





Since marriage and adoption are legal proceeding of the state, it can be argued that equal protection is denied to those who are of same sex in those states where the law prohibits these.





Please note that I am not an attorney.



They do.





These specific issues have not reached the US Supreme Court yet.





But it appears headed there based on the current California Prop 8 case.





In the initial filings to counter a stay request, the Pro-Prop 8 side did raise Federal issues. That is probably not binding when the case is actually heard, but if they do raise it, it could signal an intent to appeal the case, regardless of outcome, on the fast track to the US Supreme Court.





The current state constitutional claims are essentially that:





1 - the right exists in the state


2 - the proposition removes the 800 year old equal protection clause from the State Constitution and hence is a revision, not an amendment, and the procedures for revisions were not followed.





See my best answer at http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;鈥?/a> for more details on that.





That is a very specific argument germane to the California State Constitution only, no Federal issues raised, so USSC has no jurisdiction.





But Federal issues could be raised - equal protection clause is present in the US Constitution as well. Similarly, anti-miscegenation laws were defended with essentially the same arguments we see against same sex marriage, yet the Supreme Court found those laws unconstitutional in 1968. So look at that ruling for an idea how the logic might go were this to reach the Court.





Finally, this part is my opinion: After Jan 20, expect the oldest and most liberal members of the Court to resign in succession, and for Obama to appoint replacements asap. It is a miracle they all survived 8 years of Bush, they were all ready to retire when Gore was elected. Expect same sex marriage to be an issue in confirmation hearings for new Justices for the first time.
Check out the Fourteenth Amendment. That Amendment became a part of the Constitution after former slaves were given full rights of citizenship. Dealing with issues regarding sexual preference is sort of a twist on the Constitutonal Amendments since they relate to just about every category -- gender, race, religion, etc. -- except sexual preference.


The states do have the right to legislate their own laws as long as they are not in conflict with the U.S. Constitution.
They do have the right to legislate their own laws. The laws are not being overturned based on the United States federal Constitution. They are being overturned on the basis of the laws being unconstitutional according to the individual states' constitution, so each state has a different one, but all are based on the federal constitution.



UN mandated human rights





religions hate gays


constitution says keep religion out of politics





and of couse the right to - life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.





happiness for some people means being married to a gay partner rather than a straight partner






The Constitution does not give gays the Right to ';marry.';





It is a social issue. And society votes time and again, ';marriage'; is between a man and a woman.





Nuff said.
It's unconstitutional because everybody has rights in this country.
Yes.
thats pretty gay...