If the Constitution grants equal rights to all persons can a State Constitution deny these rights to certain people?

As in California's proposition 8 which denies groups of people - same sex couples, whether gay or straight - the right to marry. Asked by ronhohn 37 months ago Similar questions: Constitution grants equal rights persons State deny people Politics & Law > Politics.

Similar questions: Constitution grants equal rights persons State deny people.

States are self governing The Constitution of the United States of America was set up to be a guideline from which each state draws to create their own constitution. Each state is self governing and has it's own individual set of laws. However, a Federal Court may step in as a third party, a mediator, when that state's issues cannot be resolved.

The Federal Court can override an individual state's law but usually only does so when matters of security are the issue.

1 You have generalized "rights". The Constitution states specific rights which it controls, and leaves other rights to be decided by the states. You have picked one of many rights that the individual states have control over.

You have generalized "rights". The Constitution states specific rights which it controls, and leaves other rights to be decided by the states. You have picked one of many rights that the individual states have control over.

2 The haters managed to get Prop 8, the Homophobia Protection Act, passed to change the state constitution because they failed to stop jurisdictions from finding so-called same-sex marriage protected under the constitution (a lot of out of state $$ was kicked in; thanks Mormons, you've proved your small mindedness! ). Through a campaign of lies and scare tactics they were able to coat-tail it during a high turnout election, knowing many blacks are conservative on the issue.It will be challenged by numerous entities as far as the Supreme Court, and, depending on timing and Obama's possible appointments to that court, is likely to be declared unconstitutional.

It is a blatant cause of religious interference with secular law and, like the infamous micegination laws of Virginia, et al, cannot withstand an unbiased and constitutional dissection.

The haters managed to get Prop 8, the Homophobia Protection Act, passed to change the state constitution because they failed to stop jurisdictions from finding so-called same-sex marriage protected under the constitution (a lot of out of state $$ was kicked in; thanks Mormons, you've proved your small mindedness! ). Through a campaign of lies and scare tactics they were able to coat-tail it during a high turnout election, knowing many blacks are conservative on the issue.It will be challenged by numerous entities as far as the Supreme Court, and, depending on timing and Obama's possible appointments to that court, is likely to be declared unconstitutional.

It is a blatant cause of religious interference with secular law and, like the infamous micegination laws of Virginia, et al, cannot withstand an unbiased and constitutional dissection.

3 Well they may as well go all the way. I never agreed with the polygamy ban enforced upon the Mormons. They had to wait longer than any other territory to become a state.

They had to wait about 50 years or until there were only a few polygamous marriages. Then we know there are those that wish to wed their pets. Sorry, in CA pets aren't pets, I think they are companions.Do we allow siblings to wed.

That was the dynastic requirement in Ancient Egypt. If their were no siblings, aunts & nephews or neices & uncles were married. This list keeps on going.

We may as well ban age restrictions as well. Justice Ginsburg favors adult - child love & sex. Kids should be able to get in on the fun.

Religious interference with secular law. The is & has been one man & one woman make a marriage. Who is interfering with that.

The marriage requirement is to create a family & provide legitimacy to the children & a stable home-life, which is not an issue with same sex marriage. Marriage is not a constitutional right & is therefore not protected under the constution.

Well they may as well go all the way. I never agreed with the polygamy ban enforced upon the Mormons. They had to wait longer than any other territory to become a state.

They had to wait about 50 years or until there were only a few polygamous marriages. Then we know there are those that wish to wed their pets. Sorry, in CA pets aren't pets, I think they are companions.Do we allow siblings to wed.

That was the dynastic requirement in Ancient Egypt. If their were no siblings, aunts & nephews or neices & uncles were married. This list keeps on going.

We may as well ban age restrictions as well. Justice Ginsburg favors adult - child love & sex. Kids should be able to get in on the fun.

Religious interference with secular law. The is & has been one man & one woman make a marriage. Who is interfering with that.

The marriage requirement is to create a family & provide legitimacy to the children & a stable home-life, which is not an issue with same sex marriage. Marriage is not a constitutional right & is therefore not protected under the constution.

4 Pales, you exhaust me with your illogical and non-sequitur responses which are wrong in so many ways. The bottom line is this, some get tax breaks and other perks, locally and federally if their family is recognized by the government as a marriage. Civil law provides for non-sectarian marriage (I can get married in town hall, without religious sanction and even if I'm a non-believer).

There is nothing in the Constitution about what a marriage is or isn't. But there are causes about equality. I want the same recognition for everyone who makes a commitment to create a family.It's a matter of fairness and equality under the law.

I guess you missed the irony that Mormons were persecuted for their minority views on marriage and today lead the backlash against marriage equality today.

Pales, you exhaust me with your illogical and non-sequitur responses which are wrong in so many ways. The bottom line is this, some get tax breaks and other perks, locally and federally if their family is recognized by the government as a marriage. Civil law provides for non-sectarian marriage (I can get married in town hall, without religious sanction and even if I'm a non-believer).

There is nothing in the Constitution about what a marriage is or isn't. But there are causes about equality. I want the same recognition for everyone who makes a commitment to create a family.It's a matter of fairness and equality under the law.

I guess you missed the irony that Mormons were persecuted for their minority views on marriage and today lead the backlash against marriage equality today.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.