Wry Catcher
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #481
Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".
Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.
Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.
Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.
Once again the ignorance of our Constitution is broadcast for the world to read.
Art. 1, sec. 8 clause 1 states in full:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United StatesWhere in the COTUS is general Welfare defined?
If we are to consider the Preamble to COTUS as a mission/vision statement, the concept of a general Welfare along with a common defence (defense) are a guarantee of protection to each individual citizen of civil rights, not limited to those enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
Thus, the congress via the taxing power can pass legislation to provide cradle to grave protection against disease to each of us, and a guarantee to each citizen that the civil rights (life, liberty, property and happiness) equally to all.
The common defense and general welfare clauses are not grants of power. The grants of powers are enumerated and explicit. The general welfare clause was defined in the debates and writings and came from two articles in the Articles of Confederation, and the meaning and intent did not change with the Constitution.
Methinks you have not done your research.
Madison and Hamilton did not agree, and the issue was sort of decided by Butler, but not really.