Gay marriage is not a constitutional right

[Syriusly]

No one ever said it was – Obergefell concerned state governments violating the 14th Amendment, not any branch of the Federal government.

It was state government which sought to deny same-sex couples access to state marriage law; same-sex couples who were first and foremost citizens of the United States, residents of their respective states subordinate to that.

And the states are subject to the Federal Constitution, including the 14th Amendment, where any laws enacted by the states repugnant to the Constitution are appropriately struck down by the courts, in accordance with Articles III and VI of the Constitution.

Obergefell concerned Kennedy creating constitutional concepts that do not exist.

State governments did not seek to deny same-sex couple access to state marriages. That concept has been a law or statute in this country since the 1600s. So to seek that is incorrect..

LOL- really? Are you ignorant- or just lying to us?

States started banning same sex marriages specifically to deny same sex couples access to state marriage

Alabama 1996
`I signed this order because of pending legislation in Hawaii to legalize homosexual marriages,'' James said. ``There would have been the chance that Alabama would have to recognize those same-sex marriages.''

Alabama later became the 30th state to specifically ban same sex marriage.

Laws against same-sex marriages have been on the books in this country since the 1600s.

Feel free to cite Alabama's. Or California's.

Since both states specifically passed laws outlawing same sex marriages.

Odd isn't it that they would pass a law that was already in existence?

How far back in time? 1799 with the Sargent’s Code of the territory and the adopted common laws against buggery? The adoption of common laws against buggery in 1833? 1841 when Alabama with the Penal Code in the Annual Session of the General Assembly of the State of Alabama January 9, 1841 that converted common law to statutory law regarding buggery?

Who is talking about buggery? You said that there were laws against same sex marriage dating abck to the 1600's.

Are you now not able to back up your claim?

What a surprise......

 

[Tennyson]

Obergefell concerned Kennedy creating constitutional concepts that do not exist.

State governments did not seek to deny same-sex couple access to state marriages. That concept has been a law or statute in this country since the 1600s. So to seek that is incorrect..

LOL- really? Are you ignorant- or just lying to us?

States started banning same sex marriages specifically to deny same sex couples access to state marriage

Alabama 1996
`I signed this order because of pending legislation in Hawaii to legalize homosexual marriages,'' James said. ``There would have been the chance that Alabama would have to recognize those same-sex marriages.''

Alabama later became the 30th state to specifically ban same sex marriage.

Laws against same-sex marriages have been on the books in this country since the 1600s.

Feel free to cite Alabama's. Or California's.

Since both states specifically passed laws outlawing same sex marriages.

Odd isn't it that they would pass a law that was already in existence?

How far back in time? 1799 with the Sargent’s Code of the territory and the adopted common laws against buggery? The adoption of common laws against buggery in 1833? 1841 when Alabama with the Penal Code in the Annual Session of the General Assembly of the State of Alabama January 9, 1841 that converted common law to statutory law regarding buggery?

Who is talking about buggery? You said that there were laws against same sex marriage dating abck to the 1600's.

Are you now not able to back up your claim?

What a surprise......

Why would there need to be a specific law regarding same-sex marriage when it was a felony to be a homosexual and the marriage licenses were limited to one man and one women?

You remind me of daws101.

 

[Syriusly]

LOL- really? Are you ignorant- or just lying to us?

States started banning same sex marriages specifically to deny same sex couples access to state marriage

Alabama 1996
`I signed this order because of pending legislation in Hawaii to legalize homosexual marriages,'' James said. ``There would have been the chance that Alabama would have to recognize those same-sex marriages.''

Alabama later became the 30th state to specifically ban same sex marriage.

Laws against same-sex marriages have been on the books in this country since the 1600s.

Feel free to cite Alabama's. Or California's.

Since both states specifically passed laws outlawing same sex marriages.

Odd isn't it that they would pass a law that was already in existence?

How far back in time? 1799 with the Sargent’s Code of the territory and the adopted common laws against buggery? The adoption of common laws against buggery in 1833? 1841 when Alabama with the Penal Code in the Annual Session of the General Assembly of the State of Alabama January 9, 1841 that converted common law to statutory law regarding buggery?

Who is talking about buggery? You said that there were laws against same sex marriage dating abck to the 1600's.

Are you now not able to back up your claim?

What a surprise......

Why would there need to be a specific law regarding same-sex marriage when it was a felony to be a homosexual and the marriage licenses were limited to one man and one women?

You remind me of daws101.

Quoting you:
Laws against same-sex marriages have been on the books in this country since the 1600

Still waiting for you to back up your claim with a citation of such a law.

And exactly how are two lesbians committing 'buggery'?

 

[Tennyson]

Laws against same-sex marriages have been on the books in this country since the 1600s.

Feel free to cite Alabama's. Or California's.

Since both states specifically passed laws outlawing same sex marriages.

Odd isn't it that they would pass a law that was already in existence?

How far back in time? 1799 with the Sargent’s Code of the territory and the adopted common laws against buggery? The adoption of common laws against buggery in 1833? 1841 when Alabama with the Penal Code in the Annual Session of the General Assembly of the State of Alabama January 9, 1841 that converted common law to statutory law regarding buggery?

Who is talking about buggery? You said that there were laws against same sex marriage dating abck to the 1600's.

Are you now not able to back up your claim?

What a surprise......

Why would there need to be a specific law regarding same-sex marriage when it was a felony to be a homosexual and the marriage licenses were limited to one man and one women?

You remind me of daws101.

Quoting you:
Laws against same-sex marriages have been on the books in this country since the 1600

Still waiting for you to back up your claim with a citation of such a law.

And exactly how are two lesbians committing 'buggery'?

I did. Your lack of understanding is not my problem. Good luck with your worldview. The amusement has worn off for me.

 

[emilynghiem]

Why can't we have marriage laws written that well, where both sides agree to how it's written
and can still get out of it the interpretation that matches their beliefs.

Because, for most people, the point of government is to force their values on others.

Not for most people, no, but for a minority of frightened reactionary conservatives, yes.

Unfortunately, in some states and jurisdictions, that frightened, reactionary minority manifests as a majority which advocates denying citizens of the United States their rights and protected liberties motivated by unwarranted fear and hate.

That’s why we have a Constitution and its case law, to protect the rights and protected liberties of citizens from abuse by state and local governments.

Such is the ridiculous hypocrisy of conservatives and libertarians: they rail against the perceived ‘abuse’ and ‘overreach’ of the Federal government, yet when state governments engage in the same abuse and overreach, conservatives and libertarians are suddenly blind to that abuse and overreach.

Dear C_Clayton_Jones
your past two posts, this and the one previously,
are stating the same as what Conservative Constitutionalists also say:
that the Constitutional laws are to prevent abuses of Govt to infringe on rights of people

A. one difference I see is that both you and the right opponents
count protection of infringement
ONLY if it protects YOUR beliefs but not the other side
Thus that is still depending on govt to establish beliefs,
where the left is worse about believing and relying on govt to do so
instead of teaching people to respect this naturally as the right try to teach
(where citizens are empowered equally by living by and enforcing Constitutional laws directly
similar to living by Scriptural laws to be equally empowered instead of relying on church authority as a middleman)

So if govt protected right to life beliefs from overstepping by ACA
Do you equally applaud this, as prolife Constitutionalists do, as correct enforcement of Constitutional limits?

And when laws are blocked from imposing faith based arguments against abortion
Do those same Constitutionalists applaud this as protecting the free choice
of the individual from establishing beliefs through govt?

B. the other difference I notice
Again the left RELIES on govt to create or establish rights,
while the right teaches these are inherent
and writing them down in the Constitution just made them statutory.

It seems to me if both parties agreed to stop abusing govt to push
THEIR beliefs about rights on everyone else,
then we wouldn't rely on govt to define and defend them.

We the people would agree to respect and protect each other's rights.
And we'd all agree to use govt correctly to ESTABLISH policies where we already agree.

 

[Syriusly]

Feel free to cite Alabama's. Or California's.

Since both states specifically passed laws outlawing same sex marriages.

Odd isn't it that they would pass a law that was already in existence?

How far back in time? 1799 with the Sargent’s Code of the territory and the adopted common laws against buggery? The adoption of common laws against buggery in 1833? 1841 when Alabama with the Penal Code in the Annual Session of the General Assembly of the State of Alabama January 9, 1841 that converted common law to statutory law regarding buggery?

Who is talking about buggery? You said that there were laws against same sex marriage dating abck to the 1600's.

Are you now not able to back up your claim?

What a surprise......

Why would there need to be a specific law regarding same-sex marriage when it was a felony to be a homosexual and the marriage licenses were limited to one man and one women?

You remind me of daws101.

Quoting you:
Laws against same-sex marriages have been on the books in this country since the 1600

Still waiting for you to back up your claim with a citation of such a law.

And exactly how are two lesbians committing 'buggery'?

I did. Your lack of understanding is not my problem. Good luck with your worldview. The amusement has worn off for me.

LOL- you were unable to cite a single law against same sex marriage until states started passing specific prohibitions that I mentioned- and I pointed out how hilarious you were for equating lesbians marrying to buggery.

Run away, run away.

LOL

 

[Tennyson]

New England Body of Liberties

If any man lyeth with mankinde, as a man lyeth with a woman, both of them have committed abomination, they both shall surely be put to death. Levit. 20. 13. And if any woman change the naturall use into that which is against nature, as Rom. 1. 26. she shall be liable to the same sentence, and punishment, or if any person, or persons, shall commit any other kinde of unnaturall and shamefull filthines, called in Scripture the going after strange flesh, or other flesh then God alloweth, by carnal! knowledge of another vessel then God in nature hath ap- pointed to become oneflesh, whether it be by abusing the contrary part ofa grown woman, or child ofeither sex, or unripe vessel ofa girle, wherein the natural use ofthe woman is left, which God hath ordained for the propagation of posterity, and Sodomiticall filthinesse (tending to the destruction ofthe race ofmankind) is committed by a kind ofrape, nature beingforced, though the will were inticed,' every such person shall be put to death. Or if any man shall act upon hitmself; and in the sight ofothers spill his owne seed, by example, or counsel, or both, corrupting or tempting others to doe the like, which tends to the sin of Sodomy, if it be not one kind of it; or shall defile, or corrupt himself and othes, by anykind of sinfulthinesse, he shall be punished according to the nature of the offence; or if the case considered with the aggravating circum- stances, shall according to the mind of God revealed in his word require it, he shall be put to death, as the court of magistrates shall determine.

 

[Faun]

So, how many queers are there here?

Counting you? One.

 

[emilynghiem]

LOL- really? Are you ignorant- or just lying to us?

States started banning same sex marriages specifically to deny same sex couples access to state marriage

Alabama 1996
`I signed this order because of pending legislation in Hawaii to legalize homosexual marriages,'' James said. ``There would have been the chance that Alabama would have to recognize those same-sex marriages.''

Alabama later became the 30th state to specifically ban same sex marriage.

Laws against same-sex marriages have been on the books in this country since the 1600s.

Feel free to cite Alabama's. Or California's.

Since both states specifically passed laws outlawing same sex marriages.

Odd isn't it that they would pass a law that was already in existence?

How far back in time? 1799 with the Sargent’s Code of the territory and the adopted common laws against buggery? The adoption of common laws against buggery in 1833? 1841 when Alabama with the Penal Code in the Annual Session of the General Assembly of the State of Alabama January 9, 1841 that converted common law to statutory law regarding buggery?

Who is talking about buggery? You said that there were laws against same sex marriage dating abck to the 1600's.

Are you now not able to back up your claim?

What a surprise......

Why would there need to be a specific law regarding same-sex marriage when it was a felony to be a homosexual and the marriage licenses were limited to one man and one women?

You remind me of daws101.

Dear Syriusly and Tennyson
I don't see getting much out of entrapping each other in mistakes or misstatements about this.
As some kind of judge or attack on the person.

It's clear to me that marriage was assumed by definition
to refer to husband and wife as male and female.
And this was not challenged PUBLICLY AND POLITICALLY until more recently, after years of LGBT organizing
enough support to lobby.

So if the legal issue did not even come up IN PUBLIC until later, the laws in response did not either.

We have yet to challenge the whole issue of MARRIAGE being in govt in the first place.
This was also assumed to be an agreement to mix church and state authority in both recognizing marriage.

We used to allow references to God in schools, and have the classes prayer together.
But that was challenged and taken out.

At this point, I'm arguing to be consistent.

If you are going to insist on removing or neutralizing Christian expression of prayer and beliefs in God and Jesus
from public institutions,
then treat LGBT expressions practice and beliefs regarding transgender identity and homosexuality and marriage
the same way;
if you are going to defend LGBT as "cultural diversity" and argue for inclusion against discrimination
then defend Christian belief and practice as "cultural diversity" that deserves inclusion and not
discrimination by creed.

NOTE:
If you look at the religious freedom restoration act, the First Amendment is still in effect, and this law didn't come about until, in response to problems with biases against religious freedom already well established.

There is something about the democratic and legislative process, in representing a CONTRACT between people and govt, where going through the process of enacting or reforming a law has value in affirming the consent and representation of the public.

Even though the First Amendment already established religious freedom, somehow in pushing and passing the restoration act, this helped to RENEW commitment to enforce the same, that should be enforced anyway!

What we really need is a public national consensus on these laws, so whatever it is that is being left out or not resolved is fully addressed and represented.

We need to agree how to interpret and apply laws, instead of fighting whether to throw the old ones out as people are arguing with the Constitution. If we interpreted and enforced "religious freedom" fully and consistently, to include and resolve all cases of conflicts BEFORE passing laws, we wouldn't have these arguments over marriage laws or religious freedom restoration as a reaction to ongoing conflicts.
We would have solved the root problem instead of trying to legislate it away.

 

[Tennyson]

Laws against same-sex marriages have been on the books in this country since the 1600s.

Feel free to cite Alabama's. Or California's.

Since both states specifically passed laws outlawing same sex marriages.

Odd isn't it that they would pass a law that was already in existence?

How far back in time? 1799 with the Sargent’s Code of the territory and the adopted common laws against buggery? The adoption of common laws against buggery in 1833? 1841 when Alabama with the Penal Code in the Annual Session of the General Assembly of the State of Alabama January 9, 1841 that converted common law to statutory law regarding buggery?

Who is talking about buggery? You said that there were laws against same sex marriage dating abck to the 1600's.

Are you now not able to back up your claim?

What a surprise......

Why would there need to be a specific law regarding same-sex marriage when it was a felony to be a homosexual and the marriage licenses were limited to one man and one women?

You remind me of daws101.

Dear Syriusly and Tennyson
I don't see getting much out of entrapping each other in mistakes or misstatements about this.
As some kind of judge or attack on the person.

It's clear to me that marriage was assumed by definition
to refer to husband and wife as male and female.
And this was not challenged PUBLICLY AND POLITICALLY until more recently, after years of LGBT organizing
enough support to lobby.

So if the legal issue did not even come up IN PUBLIC until later, the laws in response did not either.

We have yet to challenge the whole issue of MARRIAGE being in govt in the first place.
This was also assumed to be an agreement to mix church and state authority in both recognizing marriage.

We used to allow references to God in schools, and have the classes prayer together.
But that was challenged and taken out.

At this point, I'm arguing to be consistent.

If you are going to insist on removing or neutralizing Christian expression of prayer and beliefs in God and Jesus
from public institutions,
then treat LGBT expressions practice and beliefs regarding transgender identity and homosexuality and marriage
the same way;
if you are going to defend LGBT as "cultural diversity" and argue for inclusion against discrimination
then defend Christian belief and practice as "cultural diversity" that deserves inclusion and not
discrimination by creed.

NOTE:
If you look at the religious freedom restoration act, the First Amendment is still in effect, and this law didn't come about until, in response to problems with biases against religious freedom already well established.

There is something about the democratic and legislative process, in representing a CONTRACT between people and govt, where going through the process of enacting or reforming a law has value in affirming the consent and representation of the public.

Even though the First Amendment already established religious freedom, somehow in pushing and passing the restoration act, this helped to RENEW commitment to enforce the same, that should be enforced anyway!

What we really need is a public national consensus on these laws, so whatever it is that is being left out or not resolved is fully addressed and represented.

We need to agree how to interpret and apply laws, instead of fighting whether to throw the old ones out as people are arguing with the Constitution. If we interpreted and enforced "religious freedom" fully and consistently, to include and resolve all cases of conflicts BEFORE passing laws, we wouldn't have these arguments over marriage laws or religious freedom restoration as a reaction to ongoing conflicts.
We would have solved the root problem instead of trying to legislate it away.

Emilynghiem,

The First Amendment cannot be in effect if there is a RFRA. The fact that there is any law regarding the First Amendment violates the very first line of the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law....This breakdown rests solely with activist Supreme Courts.

We do not need a national consensus. That violates federalism and is why this country is divided. These are state issues.

 

[dblack]

We do not need a national consensus. That violates federalism and is why this country is divided. These are state issues.

We need a consensus on the proper limits of government power. Without that, democracy isn't viable.

 

[Tennyson]

We do not need a national consensus. That violates federalism and is why this country is divided. These are state issues.

We need a consensus on the proper limits of government power. Without that, democracy isn't viable.

I think we already have that with the Constitution and Bill of Rights. They both are worthless without the rule of law.

 

[dblack]

We do not need a national consensus. That violates federalism and is why this country is divided. These are state issues.

We need a consensus on the proper limits of government power. Without that, democracy isn't viable.

I think we already have that with the Constitution and Bill of Rights. They both are worthless without the rule of law.

They are worthless without a broad consensus on what they should be.

 

[Tennyson]

We do not need a national consensus. That violates federalism and is why this country is divided. These are state issues.

We need a consensus on the proper limits of government power. Without that, democracy isn't viable.

I think we already have that with the Constitution and Bill of Rights. They both are worthless without the rule of law.

They are worthless without a broad consensus on what they should be.

That defeats the purpose of a written constitution. That is mob rule and one of the purposes of our written constitution was to protect the country from human nature.

 

[dblack]

We do not need a national consensus. That violates federalism and is why this country is divided. These are state issues.

We need a consensus on the proper limits of government power. Without that, democracy isn't viable.

I think we already have that with the Constitution and Bill of Rights. They both are worthless without the rule of law.

They are worthless without a broad consensus on what they should be.

That defeats the purpose of a written constitution. That is mob rule and one of the purposes of our written constitution was to protect the country from human nature.

Eventually, yeah. That's the problem. Once people no longer understand or care why it's important, it becomes "just a piece of paper". And when reliable limits on government power aren't honored by a society, consent becomes impossible.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Why can't we have marriage laws written that well, where both sides agree to how it's written
and can still get out of it the interpretation that matches their beliefs.

Because, for most people, the point of government is to force their values on others.

Not for most people, no, but for a minority of frightened reactionary conservatives, yes.

Unfortunately, in some states and jurisdictions, that frightened, reactionary minority manifests as a majority which advocates denying citizens of the United States their rights and protected liberties motivated by unwarranted fear and hate.

That’s why we have a Constitution and its case law, to protect the rights and protected liberties of citizens from abuse by state and local governments.

Such is the ridiculous hypocrisy of conservatives and libertarians: they rail against the perceived ‘abuse’ and ‘overreach’ of the Federal government, yet when state governments engage in the same abuse and overreach, conservatives and libertarians are suddenly blind to that abuse and overreach.

Dear C_Clayton_Jones
your past two posts, this and the one previously,
are stating the same as what Conservative Constitutionalists also say:
that the Constitutional laws are to prevent abuses of Govt to infringe on rights of people

A. one difference I see is that both you and the right opponents
count protection of infringement
ONLY if it protects YOUR beliefs but not the other side
Thus that is still depending on govt to establish beliefs,
where the left is worse about believing and relying on govt to do so
instead of teaching people to respect this naturally as the right try to teach
(where citizens are empowered equally by living by and enforcing Constitutional laws directly
similar to living by Scriptural laws to be equally empowered instead of relying on church authority as a middleman)

So if govt protected right to life beliefs from overstepping by ACA
Do you equally applaud this, as prolife Constitutionalists do, as correct enforcement of Constitutional limits?

And when laws are blocked from imposing faith based arguments against abortion
Do those same Constitutionalists applaud this as protecting the free choice
of the individual from establishing beliefs through govt?

B. the other difference I notice
Again the left RELIES on govt to create or establish rights,
while the right teaches these are inherent
and writing them down in the Constitution just made them statutory.

It seems to me if both parties agreed to stop abusing govt to push
THEIR beliefs about rights on everyone else,
then we wouldn't rely on govt to define and defend them.

We the people would agree to respect and protect each other's rights.
And we'd all agree to use govt correctly to ESTABLISH policies where we already agree.

You clearly have no understanding of the issue, the issue has nothing to do with the ACA or ‘life beliefs,’ and your posts are consequently completely devoid of merit.

It is a settled, accepted fact of Constitutional law, beyond dispute, that the states may not deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they’re eligible to participate in.

Obergefell is the progeny of over 100 years of 14th Amendment jurisprudence prohibiting the states from engaging in class legislation.

This settled and accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence applies solely to state and local governments, not private persons or organizations.

As a result, no personal beliefs, ‘life beliefs,’ or religious beliefs are being violated, infringed upon, or in any manner abridged by the Obergefell ruling.

Private persons and religious organizations hostile to gay Americans remain at complete liberty to continue to oppose, discriminate against, and prohibit gay Americans from joining or participating in their private organizations.

Last, Obergefell applies only to state civil marriage, not religious marriage, where religious organizations are free to exclude same-sex couples with absolute impunity.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Feel free to cite Alabama's. Or California's.

Since both states specifically passed laws outlawing same sex marriages.

Odd isn't it that they would pass a law that was already in existence?

How far back in time? 1799 with the Sargent’s Code of the territory and the adopted common laws against buggery? The adoption of common laws against buggery in 1833? 1841 when Alabama with the Penal Code in the Annual Session of the General Assembly of the State of Alabama January 9, 1841 that converted common law to statutory law regarding buggery?

Who is talking about buggery? You said that there were laws against same sex marriage dating abck to the 1600's.

Are you now not able to back up your claim?

What a surprise......

Why would there need to be a specific law regarding same-sex marriage when it was a felony to be a homosexual and the marriage licenses were limited to one man and one women?

You remind me of daws101.

Dear Syriusly and Tennyson
I don't see getting much out of entrapping each other in mistakes or misstatements about this.
As some kind of judge or attack on the person.

It's clear to me that marriage was assumed by definition
to refer to husband and wife as male and female.
And this was not challenged PUBLICLY AND POLITICALLY until more recently, after years of LGBT organizing
enough support to lobby.

So if the legal issue did not even come up IN PUBLIC until later, the laws in response did not either.

We have yet to challenge the whole issue of MARRIAGE being in govt in the first place.
This was also assumed to be an agreement to mix church and state authority in both recognizing marriage.

We used to allow references to God in schools, and have the classes prayer together.
But that was challenged and taken out.

At this point, I'm arguing to be consistent.

If you are going to insist on removing or neutralizing Christian expression of prayer and beliefs in God and Jesus
from public institutions,
then treat LGBT expressions practice and beliefs regarding transgender identity and homosexuality and marriage
the same way;
if you are going to defend LGBT as "cultural diversity" and argue for inclusion against discrimination
then defend Christian belief and practice as "cultural diversity" that deserves inclusion and not
discrimination by creed.

NOTE:
If you look at the religious freedom restoration act, the First Amendment is still in effect, and this law didn't come about until, in response to problems with biases against religious freedom already well established.

There is something about the democratic and legislative process, in representing a CONTRACT between people and govt, where going through the process of enacting or reforming a law has value in affirming the consent and representation of the public.

Even though the First Amendment already established religious freedom, somehow in pushing and passing the restoration act, this helped to RENEW commitment to enforce the same, that should be enforced anyway!

What we really need is a public national consensus on these laws, so whatever it is that is being left out or not resolved is fully addressed and represented.

We need to agree how to interpret and apply laws, instead of fighting whether to throw the old ones out as people are arguing with the Constitution. If we interpreted and enforced "religious freedom" fully and consistently, to include and resolve all cases of conflicts BEFORE passing laws, we wouldn't have these arguments over marriage laws or religious freedom restoration as a reaction to ongoing conflicts.
We would have solved the root problem instead of trying to legislate it away.

Emilynghiem,

The First Amendment cannot be in effect if there is a RFRA. The fact that there is any law regarding the First Amendment violates the very first line of the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law....This breakdown rests solely with activist Supreme Courts.

We do not need a national consensus. That violates federalism and is why this country is divided. These are state issues.

This country is divided because of the fear, ignorance, and hate common to far too many Americans, and those Americans seeking to codify their fear, ignorance, and hate.

And as is the case with all state laws, marriage contract law is the purview of the states to the extent that those laws comply with the Constitution and its case law.

When the people of the states err, and enact measures repugnant to the Constitution, such as laws denying same-sex couples access to state marriage law, the courts appropriately and in accordance with the Constitution and the rule of law invalidate those measures.

This reflects the genius of our Constitutional Republic, and why it is far superior to any democracy: because the citizens of this Republic are subject solely to the rule of law, not men, not ‘majority rule,’ because men are incapable of ruling justly – laws which sought to deny gay Americans their right to equal protection and due process of the law are evidence of that.

 

[emilynghiem]

Why can't we have marriage laws written that well, where both sides agree to how it's written
and can still get out of it the interpretation that matches their beliefs.

Because, for most people, the point of government is to force their values on others.

Not for most people, no, but for a minority of frightened reactionary conservatives, yes.

Unfortunately, in some states and jurisdictions, that frightened, reactionary minority manifests as a majority which advocates denying citizens of the United States their rights and protected liberties motivated by unwarranted fear and hate.

That’s why we have a Constitution and its case law, to protect the rights and protected liberties of citizens from abuse by state and local governments.

Such is the ridiculous hypocrisy of conservatives and libertarians: they rail against the perceived ‘abuse’ and ‘overreach’ of the Federal government, yet when state governments engage in the same abuse and overreach, conservatives and libertarians are suddenly blind to that abuse and overreach.

Dear C_Clayton_Jones
your past two posts, this and the one previously,
are stating the same as what Conservative Constitutionalists also say:
that the Constitutional laws are to prevent abuses of Govt to infringe on rights of people

A. one difference I see is that both you and the right opponents
count protection of infringement
ONLY if it protects YOUR beliefs but not the other side
Thus that is still depending on govt to establish beliefs,
where the left is worse about believing and relying on govt to do so
instead of teaching people to respect this naturally as the right try to teach
(where citizens are empowered equally by living by and enforcing Constitutional laws directly
similar to living by Scriptural laws to be equally empowered instead of relying on church authority as a middleman)

So if govt protected right to life beliefs from overstepping by ACA
Do you equally applaud this, as prolife Constitutionalists do, as correct enforcement of Constitutional limits?

And when laws are blocked from imposing faith based arguments against abortion
Do those same Constitutionalists applaud this as protecting the free choice
of the individual from establishing beliefs through govt?

B. the other difference I notice
Again the left RELIES on govt to create or establish rights,
while the right teaches these are inherent
and writing them down in the Constitution just made them statutory.

It seems to me if both parties agreed to stop abusing govt to push
THEIR beliefs about rights on everyone else,
then we wouldn't rely on govt to define and defend them.

We the people would agree to respect and protect each other's rights.
And we'd all agree to use govt correctly to ESTABLISH policies where we already agree.

You clearly have no understanding of the issue, the issue has nothing to do with the ACA or ‘life beliefs,’ and your posts are consequently completely devoid of merit.

It is a settled, accepted fact of Constitutional law, beyond dispute, that the states may not deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they’re eligible to participate in.

Obergefell is the progeny of over 100 years of 14th Amendment jurisprudence prohibiting the states from engaging in class legislation.

This settled and accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence applies solely to state and local governments, not private persons or organizations.

As a result, no personal beliefs, ‘life beliefs,’ or religious beliefs are being violated, infringed upon, or in any manner abridged by the Obergefell ruling.

Private persons and religious organizations hostile to gay Americans remain at complete liberty to continue to oppose, discriminate against, and prohibit gay Americans from joining or participating in their private organizations.

Last, Obergefell applies only to state civil marriage, not religious marriage, where religious organizations are free to exclude same-sex couples with absolute impunity.

Dear C_Clayton_Jones
I don't have a problem if people agree with govt endorsing right to marriage.
I have a problem with people discriminating,
and treating right to marriage for same-sex beliefs
the opposite as right to prayer for Christian beliefs.

I find it discriminatory and hypocritical to cry
for separation of church and state, and reducing prayer to "moment of silence"
but when it comes to LGBT beliefs,
demanding these be established and protected by govt as a class and a practice
but denouncing, suing, harassing and attacking Christians for
defending Christian references to God, prayer, Christmas etc.

All I ask is to be consistent.

In fact, the more I ask around and get feedback from others,
more people are agreeing with me that if
right to prayer and Christian expression were allowed back into public institutions
and people would agree not to harass, sue for removal, etc.
then Christians and others opposed to same sex marriage
might AGREE to allow that freedom of expression if the same
is enforced for Christian beliefs and practices in public and public institutions as well!

More people are saying that may be a better solution
that fighting to remove both.
Just go ahead and let govt endorse and establish both.
At least that would be fair.

Which way would you recommend if given a choice:
A. either remove marriage from govt and reduce it to civil unions for all people with no mention of biases for or against
either traditional or same sex marriage or any social relations or conditions at all besides legal competence and consent; and treat right to prayer the same, reducing it to moment of silence and not make any references to beliefs
B. or if LGBT expressions and practices are protected recognized or incorporated into govt functions
then equally endorse and protect Christian beliefs and practices including spiritual healing that has
helped people change unwanted sexual patterns of behavior, whether heterosexual or homosexual

 

[Tennyson]

Why can't we have marriage laws written that well, where both sides agree to how it's written
and can still get out of it the interpretation that matches their beliefs.

Because, for most people, the point of government is to force their values on others.

Not for most people, no, but for a minority of frightened reactionary conservatives, yes.

Unfortunately, in some states and jurisdictions, that frightened, reactionary minority manifests as a majority which advocates denying citizens of the United States their rights and protected liberties motivated by unwarranted fear and hate.

That’s why we have a Constitution and its case law, to protect the rights and protected liberties of citizens from abuse by state and local governments.

Such is the ridiculous hypocrisy of conservatives and libertarians: they rail against the perceived ‘abuse’ and ‘overreach’ of the Federal government, yet when state governments engage in the same abuse and overreach, conservatives and libertarians are suddenly blind to that abuse and overreach.

Dear C_Clayton_Jones
your past two posts, this and the one previously,
are stating the same as what Conservative Constitutionalists also say:
that the Constitutional laws are to prevent abuses of Govt to infringe on rights of people

A. one difference I see is that both you and the right opponents
count protection of infringement
ONLY if it protects YOUR beliefs but not the other side
Thus that is still depending on govt to establish beliefs,
where the left is worse about believing and relying on govt to do so
instead of teaching people to respect this naturally as the right try to teach
(where citizens are empowered equally by living by and enforcing Constitutional laws directly
similar to living by Scriptural laws to be equally empowered instead of relying on church authority as a middleman)

So if govt protected right to life beliefs from overstepping by ACA
Do you equally applaud this, as prolife Constitutionalists do, as correct enforcement of Constitutional limits?

And when laws are blocked from imposing faith based arguments against abortion
Do those same Constitutionalists applaud this as protecting the free choice
of the individual from establishing beliefs through govt?

B. the other difference I notice
Again the left RELIES on govt to create or establish rights,
while the right teaches these are inherent
and writing them down in the Constitution just made them statutory.

It seems to me if both parties agreed to stop abusing govt to push
THEIR beliefs about rights on everyone else,
then we wouldn't rely on govt to define and defend them.

We the people would agree to respect and protect each other's rights.
And we'd all agree to use govt correctly to ESTABLISH policies where we already agree.

You clearly have no understanding of the issue, the issue has nothing to do with the ACA or ‘life beliefs,’ and your posts are consequently completely devoid of merit.

It is a settled, accepted fact of Constitutional law, beyond dispute, that the states may not deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they’re eligible to participate in.

Obergefell is the progeny of over 100 years of 14th Amendment jurisprudence prohibiting the states from engaging in class legislation.

This settled and accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence applies solely to state and local governments, not private persons or organizations.

As a result, no personal beliefs, ‘life beliefs,’ or religious beliefs are being violated, infringed upon, or in any manner abridged by the Obergefell ruling.

Private persons and religious organizations hostile to gay Americans remain at complete liberty to continue to oppose, discriminate against, and prohibit gay Americans from joining or participating in their private organizations.

Last, Obergefell applies only to state civil marriage, not religious marriage, where religious organizations are free to exclude same-sex couples with absolute impunity.

I find it interesting that you state that I have no understanding, yet you have dodged everything I have written.

No, it is not 100 years in the making.

The most un-American and un-constitutional statement that could be made is "Obergefell is the progeny of over 100 years of 14th Amendment jurisprudence prohibiting the states from engaging in class legislation."

To compliment your avoidance of my posts, your entire argument is "twentieth century Supreme Courts have ruled, with no constitutional basis, it must be so, but I cannot defend their ruling with a constitutional argument."

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

We do not need a national consensus. That violates federalism and is why this country is divided. These are state issues.

We need a consensus on the proper limits of government power. Without that, democracy isn't viable.

We have consensus – it can be found in Constitutional case law.

After more than 200 years, Constitutional jurisprudence has evolved to the point where the courts can decide as to whether government has acted in accordance with that case law and as authorized by the Constitution, or where government has acted beyond its Constitutional limits.