If they're talking about regulating "marriage"

[lojasmo]

Aren't they talking about abridging first amendment rights? i.e. infringement on a church's decision to perform a ceremony? Wouln't the 1st and 29th be in direct conflict?

What happens in a case such as that? Does the presiding amendment take prescident?

[Dookus]

1. yes

almost all amendments conflict with something else in the constitution - hence the need for an amendment.

the 21st Amendment repealed the 18th Amendment. The 21st is operative.

[aquart]

2. Not to mention, if the purpose is childbearing

Should marriages without children after a reasonable period of time be dissolved? Should marriages be dissolved when children grown up? Should barren women and infertile men be forbidden to marry?

Just wondering.

[jus_the_facts]

3. anyone who isn't married is discriminated against......

....regardless of sexual orientation according to current law...now we need an amendment to the Constitution to discriminate specifically against certain people not even being allowed to marry....they've brought out THE most important issues we face as a nation for this election year....why if this isn't settled NOW our national security could be at stake! :eyes:

[arewethereyet]

4. no

the two (state licencing and religous rite) are unconnected in the technical sense. Churchs may marry anything they want, it just won't be registered for legal purposes.