Do you think someone will eventually have the nads to declare laws against gay marriage a direct violation of the constitution?

stones and nads, huh?

How ‘bout some eggs in those references?

The question is considerably more complicated than that.

The Constitution is silent on the subject of marriage, which means that the definition of marriage falls to the state government. In Massachusetts, the state constitution was sufficiently unambiguously worded that the state supreme court found that denying marriage to same-sex couples was in violation of the state constitution. In other states, the state constitutions are not written in the same way, and so the matter would be decided differently. And in a significant number of states, the constitutions have been amended to prohibit gay marriage.

Further, there are two issues. (1) Will the state license people to perform same-sex marriages, and recognize those that are performed in that state? (2) Will the state recognize same-sex marriages that are performed in other states?

(1) is entirely a matter of the state’s constitution and laws. The Federal government cannot force a state to define marriage in a particular way, because the precise definition of marriage is up to the state.

(The question of Loving v Virginia was whether the Lovings should be prosecuted for miscegenation; the Supreme Court found that that was a violation of due process and equal protection, and served no public good. So Virginia could not prosecute two men who were married in Massachusetts unless it can show some public good that is served, but it is not forced to marry two men.)

(2) is the one that requires resolution at the federal level, and it is the main reason that the word marriage is so important. The Constitution requires states to give “full faith and credit” to contracts and obligations executed in other states—which requires that two men who are married in Massachusetts be treated as married by Utah, or Florida, or Texas. This one is the slam-dunk, legally speaking.

What I expect we’ll see over the next 10 to 15 years is that same-sex couples will come to Massachusetts to get married in increasing numbers, and sooner or later there will be a state that treats a married couple as unmarried, and the case will go to the Supreme Court. Once that happens, provided the justices rule according to the Constitution, the other states will fall like dominos, because there’s no benefit in banning gay marriage when people can take a bus to one of the states where it is performed, get married, return home, and expect the state to recognize it.

Also complicating your question is the fact that the Constitution does not call for separation of church and State, it only says that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”. This just means that Congress cannot pass a law establishing a state religion, or prohibiting the free exercise of any religion. The phrase “separation of church and state” was actually in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists in which he stated his opinion that there should be a “wall of separation between Church and State.”

I hope so. It seems very 14th amendment to me. It’s not church and state, it’s equal protection.

Gay marriage is only indirectly related to religion. It’s an issue which just so happens to be strongly opposed by religious folk. Thus, while their religion dictates their beliefs, and their beliefs dictates their actions/decisions, and their actions/decisions indirectly dictate the government, it’s not the government itself obeying dogma or anything. There’s little basis for calling upon “separation of church and state,” which in and of itself is already not very well upheld in the first place.

As laureth mentioned though, it could be well argued that it violates the 14th Amendment, and that is where I stand on the issue. People have come forth with this, but it’s yet to be taken to the Supreme Court in that regard (that I know of).

I’m not sure how gay fits into religion. Gay is what you are. It’s not what you want to be like religion.Religion is a choice,gay isn’t. People want to throw gay into religion to put the fear of God in you. I’m sorry but the God I know loves all! I’d trust a gay male with my kids long before I’d trust a straight person with them. This has noting to do with church or state for that matter. Like I’d want Eliot Spitzer deciding whats moral and whats not.Religion is full of gay men. How do the as Gods chosen ones have any right to decide what right and whats wrong.If your gay fine.If your not leave them alone.

@Krag: gay fits into religion because a lot of demagogues masquerading as religious leaders have learned that they can get a lot of power and respect from the ignorant by condemning homosexuality.