Is there a constitutional right to marry? No.

Marriage grew out of property rights. It falls under contract law.

Women until the 1960s were considered chattel. A man literally married his property within the bounds of spiritual purity. So, there are NO DIRECT connections between marriage and the USA Constitution.

The contract between two people is recorded in the records of a city or county. It is recognition of a 'responsible' relationship between two people. "I am responsible to you and for you and you are responsible for me and to me."

Contract law is why divorces exist. Breaking up the contract can be simple, but, it also involves other lives, namely children. So, divorce is a measure to be sure all parties are served well by the dissolution of the contract.

There is no Article of the USA Constitution that guarantees marriage. It has always been under the direction of a contract. Even under Puritan understandings back in the day of. So, the idea that the USA Constitution was ever suppose to legislate marriage was never a promise to anyone. If it was ever considered that vital to democracy the founding documents had plenty of time to incorporate that cornerstone. That is not the case. Freedom is not about binding a man to a woman; that limits freedom. There were LGBT people in 1776, too. They were probably the witches of Salem, Massachusetts.

It can get interesting to discuss, but, marriage is a contract. It is best defined as a contract. The contract can be modified through the ages to reflect changes in society. If marriage were a cornerstone of the USA Constitution it would complicate life immensely. It could be debated that if marriage was mandatory under the USA Constitution it would demand citizens to change behaviors and dictate a religious paradigm. Believe me the founding documents were written with distinct separation of church and state.

Powerful churches have an oppressive force on a populous. They even limit economies and choice. So, the folks in 1776 knew what they were doing.

Where the entire concept departs from 'reasonal' legal standard are the demands for a Marriage Amendment but the refusal of Sharia Law as a dictate in the USA. Right from the start the Marriage Amendment wants to dictate a specific religious standard. There are a lot of problems when ANY privacy issue is dictated with constitutional authority. These privacy issues cause oppression when dictated as a constitutional standard. It is not reasonable to pursue the demands to control the behaviors of an entire country.

I am not going to engage the thought, but, when a country carries a religious standard for it's government it ONLY requires an additional costume to the daily lives of its citizens. The most extreme example are the Taliban. If one is not wearing the costume life becomes dangerous.

In current USA history, was the stark shift in personal fashion, primarily of women, after Bush #43 took office. It was startling to realize what was occurring in the USA. It definitely was a new costume for the country and it was oppressive. Definitely. That occurred as soon as the change in office took place and before September 11th.

Genderless

One of the attorneys stated the word genderless in regard to Prop 8, I believe it was. Marriages of same sex couples are not genderless. Even if two people are neutered for whatever reason they might be, that does not preclude a loving relationship that leads to marriage.

I don't like the word genderless in statements before the Supreme Court. The use of the word does not make sense. A same sex marriage does not negate the gender of the couple. So, that 'idea' is troubling. How is it that a LGBT is genderless in the eyes of other Americans. That is strange. Really strange. It is also depersonalizing. Just because a person is LGBT means they lose their gender??????????????

The Prop 8 and DOMA folks have it wrong. They are looking at loving relationships through a very strange lens. I don't like it at all.

I think the word genderless shows an attempt to remove parenting capacity needed to maintain a population called the USA. That is why off base and can be contrived as racist. The USA is a sovereign nation without definition of ethnic or racial status. The USA is quite the contrary. The USA is considered a melting pot. I don't care if the entire country is genderless, there are many other methods to increase the population that lives in the USA.

Could the society become sterile? Sure. Especially if there are leaders that view a limited nuclear war as a real possibility in the world. If that were to occur would the USA still have sovereign status? Yeah. If the USA won the war. But, to say there aren't other methods of populating a sovereign country other than procreation is a hideous reality.

DOMA and Proposition 8 have to be struck down. There is no valid argument to maintain their integrity. Every reason to do otherwise.

Let me state the obvious of the wayward demands of procreation to burden marriage in the USA. It is dangerous. That is not a valid definition.

Marriage is not about procreation. A citizen can procreate with and without a marriage license. A citizen may procreate, but, doesn't have to procreate. A citizen can decide to not procreate. Does that mean they don't marry? It is a hideous and dangerous faux face for bigotry.

There are slippery slopes all along the this discussion. If people marry because they have special status and don't procreate, but, yet the Supreme Court of the USA state Proposition 8 is a constitutional law, does that mean a citizen will be have demands to procreate outside their decision otherwise?

What happens then to the North Carolina Amendment which victimizes couples with children but are not married? This entire discussion can lead to 'child harvests' of people not married with children or couples married but not procreating within that relationship.

What if to maintain a married status a couple is demanded to have a child and they don't want children? Adoption, right? Bouy, that might even serve the adoption industry in a way they can only dream about.

The exclusion of marriage to a special status creates all kinds of problems. It is obviously unconstitutional to seek to regulate marriage.

Marriage is a privacy issue. It is no one's business who marries who or if they have a family. That is not the purview of government. Any laws that seek to regulate marriage is bigotry at its worse.

Marriage is not a State's Right issue. Marriage applies to all the citizens. It is not an exclusive focus of only California. 

If the Supreme Court plays politics with Proposition 8 it is incompetent. It is not the place of the Supreme Court to politicize any case before them. That is legal malpractice. 

Deferring to the 'political process' to play out is not a constitutional right. The Vote is a constitutional right. The political process is not a constitutional process.

Politics falls under Freedom of Speech, but, there is no constitutional right to politics in the USA.

For Alito to state this is a new political dilemma is blatant malpractice. The reality of LGBT is as old as the species itself. Alito is showing his bigoted side. Just that simple. There are vast amounts of information about the prevalence of LGBT through history, including ancient history. Alito is biasing his opinion by even raising such bigoted remarks during the hearings.

Marriage is not defined by the Bible. The biblical definition can be interpreted by many denominations of religions for the practice of faith, but, faith has nothing to do with marriage; not at the level of government; not in the USA. 

If the practice of faith discriminates between whom is fit and whom is not fit to marry for the sake of procreation that my be a doctrine of the religion or a dogma of some kind, but, there is nothing legal about that definition. When faiths discriminate based on procreation it is about raising numbers of members based on birth and not participation. The merits of that are interestingly debated, but, are not important here.

DOMA and Proposition 8 carries the question of special status.

Basically, does California and the entire of the Legislative and Executive branches of state and federal government have the right to create a special status of citizens.

I think the implications of this decision go far beyond that of same sex marriage rights.

It is about isolating some citizens away from the right to exist in the same way as citizens within the special status, be it marriage rights or parenting rights or working status. This decision is about creating 'the right to exist' as a citizen in the USA. Why is there any special considerations in the USA for a group of citizens over that of others. Being born a citizen or achieving citizen status through immigration needs to be upheld as the only status to achieve the rights of that citizenship.

There is a lot here to be concerned about. Any adverse outcome to the status of marriage as a 'special interest' to citizen rights at this level opens up a slippery slope that could eliminate more than marriage from 'citizenship' status.

I don't see this appeal to the Supreme Court failing. Marriage is as much a right to a citizen as the right to seek education, employment, health and happiness. If the Supreme Court wants to say marriage is a special status, then does nutrition fall into that same category. Why not eliminate all rights of citizens and qualify them based in special considerations. This is nonsense, this should have been thrown out as an issue at all a long time ago.

If a special status is required for full citizenship then who determines that status. The government? Will marriage licenses now require a psychiatric certification to what a sexual identity is and whom is heterosexual and whom is not. Are you bisexual, transgender? What makes anyone think they can self identify at all? There is that whole closet stuff, too. I mean how do we protect those 'fit' to marry from those that are not? The laws themselves are completely out of line with the definition of citizenship. This entire issue is crazy. It reeks of hatred and religious bigotry. 

Those seeking to pass legislation by POPULOUS vote to challenge the definition of CITIZEN need to get over themselves. Proposition 8 and DOMA are assaults against the definition of citizen. They are legislative initiatives based in political wedge issues defined in discrimination and that is putting it politely.

Proposition 8 and DOMA state, "You can be married if..." No. No. The right of the citizen is "You can be married." End of discussion. Any Supreme Court opinion outside that parameter is simply wrong. Then competency has to be decided on the Justice. Do we as a society allow this level of hatred to exist at the level of the Supreme Court?