Four Supreme Court Justices Summarize How June's Gay-Marriage Decision Was Improper/Illegal

[paddymurphy]

Then by your own admission, your entire babble about 'proving gay' is irrelevant to this thread.

Nope, there is no proof the judicial system should have been involved at all. Who was marriage between a man and woman discriminating against?

No one I guess, right?

Ah...so you say there was no discrimination because a man/woman marriage discriminated against no one? Ok....but the restrictions against man/man marriage and woman/woman marriage WAS discrimination. But I like how you think....proving that now with Obergefell, there is no discrimination because marriage between man/woman, man/man, and woman/woman discriminates against no one.

All you're proving is you think in mutually exclusive terms.

I try to be more of a progressive thinker.

All he's doing is disproving your silly claim by demonstrating that the discrimination you insist didn't exist....actually did exist.

And of course, where's 'Kim Clark's" DNA test proving she's a Christian. I mean, DNA is the only objective evidence of status you seem willing to accept as defining any status.

Nope, Obergfell never provided any evidence that he could not marry, just he did not want to marry. But why? Kind of a scuzzy looking dude, but I've known worse that could figure out how to land a lady.

Nope, never proved an inability to access the law at all.

Religion is a protected association. Sorry dude, associations are a breeze to prove.

John Obergefell did get legally married, in another state. And he cared for his dying spouse until his death. Pricks like you could not possibly understand that type of selfless commitment to another person.

 

[Skylar]

Ah...so you say there was no discrimination because a man/woman marriage discriminated against no one? Ok....but the restrictions against man/man marriage and woman/woman marriage WAS discrimination. But I like how you think....proving that now with Obergefell, there is no discrimination because marriage between man/woman, man/man, and woman/woman discriminates against no one.

All you're proving is you think in mutually exclusive terms.

I try to be more of a progressive thinker.

All he's doing is disproving your silly claim by demonstrating that the discrimination you insist didn't exist....actually did exist.

And of course, where's 'Kim Clark's" DNA test proving she's a Christian. I mean, DNA is the only objective evidence of status you seem willing to accept as defining any status.

Nope, Obergfell never provided any evidence that he could not marry, just he did not want to marry.

With the restrictions on same sex marriage found to be discrimination. Which the court established quite thoroughly.

But why? Kind of a scuzzy looking dude, but I've known worse that could figure out how to land a lady.

Nope, never proved an inability to access the law at all.

And where is Kim Davis' DNA test proving she's a Christian?

I mean, per you she can hardly claim she's being discriminated against if she can't objectively establish her status.

Freedom of religion is the freedom to associate with groups that share your faith and to act as those within that association. Give her a call, I'm sure she can give you the address where those associated meet.

And how can you objectively prove that you hold such faith? Remember, you insisted that since there is no DNA test to 'prove' gays are gay....then there is no way to objectively verify their status.

Where is Kim Davis' DNA test to 'prove' she's a Christian?

Laughing......or are you going to treat your own standard like the garbage we all already know it is?

 

[Pop23]

Nope, there is no proof the judicial system should have been involved at all. Who was marriage between a man and woman discriminating against?

No one I guess, right?

Ah...so you say there was no discrimination because a man/woman marriage discriminated against no one? Ok....but the restrictions against man/man marriage and woman/woman marriage WAS discrimination. But I like how you think....proving that now with Obergefell, there is no discrimination because marriage between man/woman, man/man, and woman/woman discriminates against no one.

All you're proving is you think in mutually exclusive terms.

I try to be more of a progressive thinker.

All he's doing is disproving your silly claim by demonstrating that the discrimination you insist didn't exist....actually did exist.

And of course, where's 'Kim Clark's" DNA test proving she's a Christian. I mean, DNA is the only objective evidence of status you seem willing to accept as defining any status.

Nope, Obergfell never provided any evidence that he could not marry, just he did not want to marry.

With the restrictions on same sex marriage found to be discrimination. Which the court established quite thoroughly.

But why? Kind of a scuzzy looking dude, but I've known worse that could figure out how to land a lady.

Nope, never proved an inability to access the law at all.

And where is Kim Davis' DNA test proving she's a Christian?

I mean, per you she can hardly claim she's being discriminated against if she can't objectively establish her status.

How could such a thing be discriminatory without anyone's proof of discrimination?

Odd argument

 

[Skylar]

Ah...so you say there was no discrimination because a man/woman marriage discriminated against no one? Ok....but the restrictions against man/man marriage and woman/woman marriage WAS discrimination. But I like how you think....proving that now with Obergefell, there is no discrimination because marriage between man/woman, man/man, and woman/woman discriminates against no one.

All you're proving is you think in mutually exclusive terms.

I try to be more of a progressive thinker.

All he's doing is disproving your silly claim by demonstrating that the discrimination you insist didn't exist....actually did exist.

And of course, where's 'Kim Clark's" DNA test proving she's a Christian. I mean, DNA is the only objective evidence of status you seem willing to accept as defining any status.

Nope, Obergfell never provided any evidence that he could not marry, just he did not want to marry.

With the restrictions on same sex marriage found to be discrimination. Which the court established quite thoroughly.

But why? Kind of a scuzzy looking dude, but I've known worse that could figure out how to land a lady.

Nope, never proved an inability to access the law at all.

And where is Kim Davis' DNA test proving she's a Christian?

I mean, per you she can hardly claim she's being discriminated against if she can't objectively establish her status.

How could such a thing be discriminatory without anyone's proof of discrimination?

Odd argument

So where is Kim Davis' DNA test proving she's a Christian? Just link to the genetic tests.

 

[OKTexas]

It's really simple, if you can't find it specifically mentioned in the Constitution, see the 9th and 10th amendments.

So.....the Bank of the United States was a violation of the Constitution? Because the 1st Congress might disagree with you.

And since there's no specific mention of the 'right to self defense with a fire arm' in the constitution......per the literalist view, it doesn't exist.

And since there is no explanation of what 'unreasonable' means, then the term is meaningless?

Its odd. You keep insisting that the constitution is simple and specific. But when I ask you to offer simple and specific explanations direct from the constitution........you can't.

Keep trying to play your games of semantics, the 9th Amendment says that the individual right spelled out in the Constitution are NOT all inclusive, even though you commies think differently. The 10th Amendment says powers not granted by the Constitution to the feds are reserved to the States and the people. So unless you can specifically show in the text of the Constitution that I don't have the right for self defense with a gun, I do.

So take your semantics games and shove it.

You do understand, don't you, that the 9th Amendment is the source of the Court's recognition of the right to Privacy? The right that led to Griswold, Roe v. Wade and the gay rights cases? The 9th Amendment means that just because there is no "right to marriage" specifically spelled out in the Constitution does not mean it does not exist. Funny, but you do not realize that your argument about there being a right to self defense despite it not being set forth specifically supports those who maintain that the Constitution has to be construed and interpreted by the Courts.

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S.113 (1973), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of abortion. Decided simultaneously with a companion case, Doe v. Bolton, the Court ruled 7–2 that a right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion,

The Court declined to adopt the district court's Ninth Amendment rationale, and instead asserted that the "right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action,

Roe v. Wade - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nope, the 9th wasn't a consideration.[/QUOTE]
Of course it was.
"The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891), the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution. In varying contexts, the Court or individual Justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right in the First Amendment, Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 564 (1969); in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 8-9 (1968), Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 350 (1967), Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886), see Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting); in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. at 484-485; in the Ninth Amendment, id. at 486 (Goldberg, J., concurring); or in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, see Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923). These decisions make it clear that only personal rights that can be deemed "fundamental" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325 (1937), are included in this guarantee of personal privacy. They also make it clear that the right has some extension to activities relating to marriage, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967); procreation, Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541-542 (1942); contraception, Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. at 453-454; id. at 460, 463-465 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944); and childrearing and education, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 535 (1925), Meyer v. Nebraska, supra.

This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. All these are factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation." They recognized that there was a right to privacy founded on the ninth amendment.[/QUOTE]

You keep saying the supreme court has the final word, yet you reject their not adopting the opinion of the district courts opinion based on the 9th Amendment. Why is that?

The Court declined to adopt the district court's Ninth Amendment rationale, and instead asserted that the "right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment'sconcept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action,

 

[Pop23]

All you're proving is you think in mutually exclusive terms.

I try to be more of a progressive thinker.

All he's doing is disproving your silly claim by demonstrating that the discrimination you insist didn't exist....actually did exist.

And of course, where's 'Kim Clark's" DNA test proving she's a Christian. I mean, DNA is the only objective evidence of status you seem willing to accept as defining any status.

Nope, Obergfell never provided any evidence that he could not marry, just he did not want to marry.

With the restrictions on same sex marriage found to be discrimination. Which the court established quite thoroughly.

But why? Kind of a scuzzy looking dude, but I've known worse that could figure out how to land a lady.

Nope, never proved an inability to access the law at all.

And where is Kim Davis' DNA test proving she's a Christian?

I mean, per you she can hardly claim she's being discriminated against if she can't objectively establish her status.

Freedom of religion is the freedom to associate with groups that share your faith and to act as those within that association. Give her a call, I'm sure she can give you the address where those associated meet.

And how can you objectively prove that you hold such faith? Remember, you insisted that since there is no DNA test to 'prove' gays are gay....then there is no way to objectively verify their status.

Where is Kim Davis' DNA test to 'prove' she's a Christian?

Laughing......or are you going to treat your own standard like the garbage we all already know it is?

Can't prove the faith, just the association, which is incredibly easy.

Got a pen, jot this down. Google church in your town. Lots of em.

I got more if you'd like.

Now, give me one reliable test to prove gay.

 

[Skylar]

All he's doing is disproving your silly claim by demonstrating that the discrimination you insist didn't exist....actually did exist.

And of course, where's 'Kim Clark's" DNA test proving she's a Christian. I mean, DNA is the only objective evidence of status you seem willing to accept as defining any status.

Nope, Obergfell never provided any evidence that he could not marry, just he did not want to marry.

With the restrictions on same sex marriage found to be discrimination. Which the court established quite thoroughly.

But why? Kind of a scuzzy looking dude, but I've known worse that could figure out how to land a lady.

Nope, never proved an inability to access the law at all.

And where is Kim Davis' DNA test proving she's a Christian?

I mean, per you she can hardly claim she's being discriminated against if she can't objectively establish her status.

Freedom of religion is the freedom to associate with groups that share your faith and to act as those within that association. Give her a call, I'm sure she can give you the address where those associated meet.

And how can you objectively prove that you hold such faith? Remember, you insisted that since there is no DNA test to 'prove' gays are gay....then there is no way to objectively verify their status.

Where is Kim Davis' DNA test to 'prove' she's a Christian?

Laughing......or are you going to treat your own standard like the garbage we all already know it is?

Can't prove the faith, just the association, which is incredibly easy.

Its faith and belief that defines religion. Not association. Visiting a mosque doesn't make you a Muslim.

And by your own standard, you can't objectively verify that faith and belief that defines religion.

How then can you discriminate against religion....if you can't prove the person is, in fact, religious?

Show us that DNA test for Kim Davis......or wipe your own ass with your own standard. As you always do.

 

[paddymurphy]

So.....the Bank of the United States was a violation of the Constitution? Because the 1st Congress might disagree with you.

And since there's no specific mention of the 'right to self defense with a fire arm' in the constitution......per the literalist view, it doesn't exist.

And since there is no explanation of what 'unreasonable' means, then the term is meaningless?

Its odd. You keep insisting that the constitution is simple and specific. But when I ask you to offer simple and specific explanations direct from the constitution........you can't.

Keep trying to play your games of semantics, the 9th Amendment says that the individual right spelled out in the Constitution are NOT all inclusive, even though you commies think differently. The 10th Amendment says powers not granted by the Constitution to the feds are reserved to the States and the people. So unless you can specifically show in the text of the Constitution that I don't have the right for self defense with a gun, I do.

So take your semantics games and shove it.

You do understand, don't you, that the 9th Amendment is the source of the Court's recognition of the right to Privacy? The right that led to Griswold, Roe v. Wade and the gay rights cases? The 9th Amendment means that just because there is no "right to marriage" specifically spelled out in the Constitution does not mean it does not exist. Funny, but you do not realize that your argument about there being a right to self defense despite it not being set forth specifically supports those who maintain that the Constitution has to be construed and interpreted by the Courts.

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S.113 (1973), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of abortion. Decided simultaneously with a companion case, Doe v. Bolton, the Court ruled 7–2 that a right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion,

The Court declined to adopt the district court's Ninth Amendment rationale, and instead asserted that the "right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action,

Roe v. Wade - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nope, the 9th wasn't a consideration.

Of course it was.
"The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891), the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution. In varying contexts, the Court or individual Justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right in the First Amendment, Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 564 (1969); in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 8-9 (1968), Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 350 (1967), Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886), see Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting); in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. at 484-485; in the Ninth Amendment, id. at 486 (Goldberg, J., concurring); or in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, see Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923). These decisions make it clear that only personal rights that can be deemed "fundamental" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325 (1937), are included in this guarantee of personal privacy. They also make it clear that the right has some extension to activities relating to marriage, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967); procreation, Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541-542 (1942); contraception, Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. at 453-454; id. at 460, 463-465 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944); and childrearing and education, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 535 (1925), Meyer v. Nebraska, supra.

This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. All these are factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation." They recognized that there was a right to privacy founded on the ninth amendment.[/QUOTE]

You keep saying the supreme court has the final word, yet you reject their not adopting the opinion of the district courts opinion based on the 9th Amendment. Why is that?

The Court declined to adopt the district court's Ninth Amendment rationale, and instead asserted that the "right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment'sconcept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action,[/QUOTE]
Is there a right to privacy based on the ninth or not?

 

[Pop23]

Nope, Obergfell never provided any evidence that he could not marry, just he did not want to marry.

With the restrictions on same sex marriage found to be discrimination. Which the court established quite thoroughly.

But why? Kind of a scuzzy looking dude, but I've known worse that could figure out how to land a lady.

Nope, never proved an inability to access the law at all.

And where is Kim Davis' DNA test proving she's a Christian?

I mean, per you she can hardly claim she's being discriminated against if she can't objectively establish her status.

Freedom of religion is the freedom to associate with groups that share your faith and to act as those within that association. Give her a call, I'm sure she can give you the address where those associated meet.

And how can you objectively prove that you hold such faith? Remember, you insisted that since there is no DNA test to 'prove' gays are gay....then there is no way to objectively verify their status.

Where is Kim Davis' DNA test to 'prove' she's a Christian?

Laughing......or are you going to treat your own standard like the garbage we all already know it is?

Can't prove the faith, just the association, which is incredibly easy.

Its faith and belief that defines religion. Not association. Visiting a mosque doesn't make you a Muslim.

And by your own standard, you can't objectively verify that faith and belief that defines religion.

How then can you discriminate against religion....if you can't prove the person is, in fact, religious?

Show us that DNA test for Kim Davis......or wipe your own ass with your own standard. As you always do.

But joining the Mosque is proof!

And BOOM, another Skylar fail

Now please, the proof of gay please.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Loving applied to marriage as it was defined at the time, same as all the other decisions except Obergefel.

Prior to the Loving decision there were some states that defined Civil Marriage based on the race composition of the couple, some did not as there were states that did allow interracial marriage.

Prior to the Obergefell decision there were some states that defined Civil Marriage based on the gender composition of the couple, some did not as there were states that did allow same-sex civil marriage.


>>>>

 

[Skylar]

With the restrictions on same sex marriage found to be discrimination. Which the court established quite thoroughly.


And where is Kim Davis' DNA test proving she's a Christian?

I mean, per you she can hardly claim she's being discriminated against if she can't objectively establish her status.

Freedom of religion is the freedom to associate with groups that share your faith and to act as those within that association. Give her a call, I'm sure she can give you the address where those associated meet.

And how can you objectively prove that you hold such faith? Remember, you insisted that since there is no DNA test to 'prove' gays are gay....then there is no way to objectively verify their status.

Where is Kim Davis' DNA test to 'prove' she's a Christian?

Laughing......or are you going to treat your own standard like the garbage we all already know it is?

Can't prove the faith, just the association, which is incredibly easy.

Its faith and belief that defines religion. Not association. Visiting a mosque doesn't make you a Muslim.

And by your own standard, you can't objectively verify that faith and belief that defines religion.

How then can you discriminate against religion....if you can't prove the person is, in fact, religious?

Show us that DNA test for Kim Davis......or wipe your own ass with your own standard. As you always do.

But joining the Mosque is proof!

The standard used by the courts is 'deeply held religious belief'. And joining a mosque doesn't objectively prove that.

So show us the DNA test that objectively proves Kim Davis is a Christian and holds a 'deeply held religious belief'.

And 'BOOM'.......you've got nothing. Exactly as I predicted you would.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Strict constructionist, not literalist.

list a few distinction if you are able to

a literalist wouldn't think computers or digital expression are covered under the 1st amendment. A literalist wouldn't allow the "fire" exception to the 1st amendment.

Where is this literalist school of constitutional philosophy/interpretation taught?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

There is also no compelling reason to overturn centuries of precedent by judicial fiat

says who? Even teat nut Jefferson on his best day stated people should NOT have to live under rules written by previous generations

That's what we have legislatures for, and the amendment process for.

That is NOT what Jefferson was speaking to.

But it is about time we all said screw it! and started up a new convention process to start over. If people are so divided, let them see how better or worse they can do. We owe NOTHING to previous generations in the way of idol worship

So precedent is worthless?

It is if people cannot agree on it .. the distant past ones

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

sounds more like you are arguing over conservative constructionists versus liberal constructionists. there is nothing strict in your strict

would you allow the label strict vegan, for a person who claims to be a strict vegan and admits to sometimes drinking soups made with beef stock?

It is far more strict than the living constitution view.

and on your 2nd case, that person isn't a vegan at all, so the point is moot.

the point isn't moot.

this isn't a law class and YOU are NOT a law professor, no matter how many times you pose as one online

 

[bodecea]

All he's doing is disproving your silly claim by demonstrating that the discrimination you insist didn't exist....actually did exist.

And of course, where's 'Kim Clark's" DNA test proving she's a Christian. I mean, DNA is the only objective evidence of status you seem willing to accept as defining any status.

Nope, Obergfell never provided any evidence that he could not marry, just he did not want to marry.

With the restrictions on same sex marriage found to be discrimination. Which the court established quite thoroughly.

But why? Kind of a scuzzy looking dude, but I've known worse that could figure out how to land a lady.

Nope, never proved an inability to access the law at all.

And where is Kim Davis' DNA test proving she's a Christian?

I mean, per you she can hardly claim she's being discriminated against if she can't objectively establish her status.

Freedom of religion is the freedom to associate with groups that share your faith and to act as those within that association. Give her a call, I'm sure she can give you the address where those associated meet.

And how can you objectively prove that you hold such faith? Remember, you insisted that since there is no DNA test to 'prove' gays are gay....then there is no way to objectively verify their status.

Where is Kim Davis' DNA test to 'prove' she's a Christian?

Laughing......or are you going to treat your own standard like the garbage we all already know it is?

Can't prove the faith, just the association, which is incredibly easy.

Got a pen, jot this down. Google church in your town. Lots of em.

I got more if you'd like.

Now, give me one reliable test to prove gay.

Why? Are you trolling for dates? (that was a serious question)

 

[Syriusly]

So you are still upset about Loving v. Virginia?

What does race have to do with sexual behaviors?

Race can be proven by reliable testing

Can gay?

Can religion? Can ethnicity or national origin? Can perceived disability? These are all classes that are protected by anti-discrimination laws.

Religion is association, not behavior.

Actually DNA testing is quite reliable in deteiming national origin (as are birth certificates - lineage) same with ethnicity

"perceived disability". Not sure where you're going with that, but in the disability hearings I've been in, yes the courts do require proof.

Really?

So you think that DNA would be able to identify whether I am American or Australian?

Tell me more again about the DNA test which would tell you whether someone is Caucasian or African American or Asian.

And the DNA test for identifying someone's religion.

 

[Syriusly]

And as the 9th amendment makes ludicrously clear.....you don't have to for it to be a right.

Though you demonstrate why we have a 9th amendment. Those founders that called for it worried about people just like you. Folks that would assume that the bill of rights and constitution were an exhaustive list of rights.

Which it isn't. Nor was ever meant to be.

For it to be protected by the federal constitution, it has to be explicit, what the 9th does is prevent the government from saying "no more rights, ever!".

Says who? Who says that for a right to be protected by the federal constitution it has to be explicit?

And the 9th amendment explicitly rejects your premise:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

You insist that that enumeration is the ONLY method that a right can be retained by the people.

Citing yourself of course. As the constitution never says this. Nor does any founder. Its just you. And as is so often the case......you citing you is functionally meaningless.

And as the 9th amendment makes ludicrously clear.....you don't have to for it to be a right.

Though you demonstrate why we have a 9th amendment. Those founders that called for it worried about people just like you. Folks that would assume that the bill of rights and constitution were an exhaustive list of rights.

Which it isn't. Nor was ever meant to be.

For it to be protected by the federal constitution, it has to be explicit, what the 9th does is prevent the government from saying "no more rights, ever!".

Says who? Who says that for a right to be protected by the federal constitution it has to be explicit?

And the 9th amendment explicitly rejects your premise:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

You insist that that enumeration is the ONLY method that a right can be retained by the people.

Citing yourself of course. As the constitution never says this. Nor does any founder. Its just you. And as is so often the case......you citing you is functionally meaningless.

it says the people can have additional rights, it says nothing about the method of using federal power to protect or enforce them.

It explicitly contradicts your insistence that explicit enumeration defines all rights. Again, read it:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

You've insisted that ONLY enumeration is the ONLY method that a right can be retained by the people. The 9th amendment contradicts you, stating the exact opposite.

And when I ask who you're citing in your claim that ONLY enumeration establishe rights.......you've got nobody.

Marty....its the same shit with every argument. You make up something, pulled sideways out of your ass. And then you insist that all of the law, the constitution, the courts, the very concept of rights itself is bound to whatever you just imagined.

Laughing.....um, no.
My position is that the federal government can only enforce rights it is explicitly told it can interact with.

Then I guess if I declare pissing into a storm drain in front of your house a right, the 9th makes the government protect me when I want to do it.[/QUOTE]

Well that is about on level with the rest of your legal claims.

 

[Syriusly]

144 pages, basically the thread has devolved into this:

This thread was in the sewer from the OP.

 

[Syriusly]

If 'gay' is utterly irrelevant to who eligible to be marriage.....then what possible relevance would being able to 'prove' who is gay have with marriage?

It all sounds like another red herring. But then, red herrings are what trolls do.

Strawman, the idea is proof of discrimination. Blacks can, gays can't.

I don't think you get what a strawman is. I'm not attributing any argument to you. I'm pointing out that your 'standard' is irrelevant to the thread.

As 'gay' has nothing to do with anyone's eligibility to be married.

And never really did.

You just strengthened the entire point of the thread

Then by your own admission, your entire babble about 'proving gay' is irrelevant to this thread.

Nope, there is no proof the judicial system should have been involved at all.

'no proof'

Hmmm your opinion does not constitute 'no proof'.

Dozens of courts across the United States felt there was sufficient proof not only to consider to be involved- but to rule against bans on same gender marriage- and this goes back to Massachusetts 12 years ago.

 

[Syriusly]

Strawman, the idea is proof of discrimination. Blacks can, gays can't.

Just like blacks can drive a car but those with several DUIs can't. One is a race, the other is behavior that doesn't qualify for marriage because of those who "share that road" (children who psychologically need both a mother and father for their best development).

Marriage belongs to children just as a road actually belongs to pedestrians.)

Silhouette grows battier and battier every day.