You don't seem to understand what the constitution actually does.
I understand it perfectly. But we're really getting sidetracked because, ultimately, the issue isn't about the Constitution. The Constitution, in truth, is not a valid legal contract and cannot be used to deprive anyone of any rights. Lysander Spooner proved that conclusively in his treatise "No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority":
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/www/NoTreason/NoTreason.html
Now, I happen to like the Constitution - but only because it was the most freedom orientied document (along with the Declaration of Independence) ever written. But as far as being a valid legal contract, it certainly is not.
So, we're going to go to the root logic on this matter, which has nothing to do with the Constitution - even though I'll talk about it a little more to address your other points.
It doesn't tell either the federal government or the states what they may do, it tells them what they may not do. In order for you to claim that the government has no right to do a thing, that thing must be specifically forbiden by the constitution.
Actually, in some areas, it clearly does tell the feds or the states what they may do. Now, it's primarily a negative document, in that it predominently tells government what it may not do, but it doesn't grant us our rights. And your assertion that "government has no right to do a thing unless it's specifically forbidden" is flawed. If a Constitutional amendment tomorrow is passed requiring every adult to kill one child under the age of 10 per year - is that ok with you because it's been made "Constitutional"?
There is no section of the constitution that forbids government at either the federal or state level from regulating contracts between people (if that is what you want to call marriage) or from regulating who may marry for that matter so the government may indeed become involved.
Yes, there is, even though the Constitution is not the ultimate authority in the matter for reasons previously stated:
* Article I, Section 10: "No State shall pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts."
* Article VI: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States... shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby; anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding... All executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support this Constitution."
* Amendment IX: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
* Amendment X: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
* Amendment XIII, Section 1: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
"A central issue is whether a person owns his or her body. For the government or state to own our bodies would be slavery. But the Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery. Clearly, this means that we as individuals own our bodies, not the state or government.
Article I, Section 10 effectively guarantees the right to contract and prohibits any State from passing any law that impairs this right. It seems to me that a person who owns his or her body has the right to "contract out" the use of that body for the pleasure of another - provided no rights are violated.
There is also a Common Law principle which states that for there to be a crime, there has to be a victim (corpus delecti). In the absence of a victim there can be no crime."
Again, from:
http://www.buildfreedom.com/tl/wua2.shtml
In order for government to be restricted from becoming involved in the issue of marriage, the right to marry whoever or whatever one wishes would have to be a protected constitutional right which it is clearly not.
The use of the specific term "marry" is not relevant, as the act itself is simply a contract.
The previous Supreme Court case I cited stated there is "an unlimited right to contract" - that ruling was correct and based logical reasoning.
Once again, the government has the right to regulate contracts between people.
No, it doesn't.
Following your logic, a brother and sister or a father and daughter could enter into a marriage contract.
Indeed they could. I certainly wouldn't advise it, just as I wouldn't advise same sex marriage, but since I don't own them, and since their actions don't violate my or anyone else's rights, I don't have a right to use force against them to stop it. I would certainly try to persuade them not to do this, but I may not use violence, either singularly or by voting for a larger group, such as government, to send armed men to threaten them if they do something I don't agree with.
Here, you have grossly misunderstood what was said in your rush to prove your point. The entire argument here is that our rights existed in the form of the common law long before the state held any sway over them and that the state's responsibility is to protect those rights that we held.
No, rights existed from the beginning of the universe. They existed prior to common law as well as prior to governments.
In the context of this argument, take some time to learn what the common law says about marriage. It does not recognize, or even acknowledge the possibility, of marriage existing between two members of the same sex.
Again, the common law is not the determining factor. Slavery was once common law. Did that make it right?
