Gay marriage is not a constitutional right

[Tennyson]

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.

This country is divided because of people like you who have destroyed the federalism that was created to prevent a division. That is what reflects the genius of our Constitution, which was based off the reasons for all failed empires and counties, the very failed reasons you promote. As with your other posts, you cannot back it up with a single piece of historical evidence.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Dear C_Clayton_Jones
and this fear and hatred, rejection discrimination and abuse,
is equally fostered against Christianity that has been demonized and excluded from public expression.

Proof of this is the embracing of the LGBT advocacy rights and culture
while actively attacking rejecting censoring and falsely accusing
any person defending or representing the experiences and process
of former gay and lesbian individuals who were healed of past abusive relations
and able to change their orientation back to their normal heterosexual nature.

Because so many of these healed people used Christian spiritual healing therapy,
of course, the Christians must be attacked and excluded.

So there is as much discrimination rejection and harassment of
the ex gays as the very discrimination the LGBT seek to overcome.

Calling all of them false and lying
is like assuming all LGBT are sick and in denial.

It's very similar, the strategy of discrediting the source to attack the arguments.

The LGBT have done this to "ex gays"
the same way they argue against Christians discrediting them as in denial and not telling the truth.

The fear based bullying is mutual.

There is equal fear that if any word gets out that some homosexuals have been changed,
then people will go too far and assume ALL can be changed instead of
understanding the truth -- that some people can change, and some cannot.

Both sides don't want to admit both groups of people exist.
Because they'd have to admit that the other side is right ABOUT SOME CASES.

The LGBT on the left are afraid to acknowledge that some people can and have changed
because they are JUST AS AFRAID the other side will abuse that
to push for ALL people to change just because some were able to!

 

[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.

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.

That sounds just like something Putin would say: the rule of man trumps the rule of law.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

We need to evolve to the point where people can complain to the justice system
where even courts have made errors in establishing a faith based bias.
And allow people to mediate grievances until a consensus is reached instead of govt dictating one side over
another in cases of conflicting beliefs or in 'POLITICAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST'

 

[Faun]

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

Say what? Since when are Christians' rights to practice their faith infringed?

 

[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.

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.

No, the problem is ignorance of – or contempt for – the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law.

The problem is ignorance of – or contempt for – how our Republican form of government operates, that citizens are subject to the rule of law, not men, and that no right is ‘absolute,’ where government is both authorized by the Constitution to place reasonable restrictions on citizens’ rights, and limited by the Constitution with regard to its authority.

For example, citizens have the right to peaceably assemble in public places pursuant to the rights enshrined in the First Amendment.

But those rights are not ‘unlimited’ or ‘absolute,’ they are subject to reasonable restrictions by government.

Although citizens have the right to peaceably assemble in public places, they may not seek to establish permanent protest or demonstration venues, such as ‘sleep-ins’ or ‘sit-ins’ (Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence).

Creating ‘sleep-ins’ or ‘sit-ins’ on public property is not entitled to First Amendment protections, they are subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions – where such restrictions do not violate citizens’ First Amendment rights, and where the Constitution authorizes government to do so.

The case law that recognizes reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on the rights enshrined in the First Amendment is consensus as to the proper limits of government.

 

[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.

We need to evolve to the point where people can complain to the justice system
where even courts have made errors in establishing a faith based bias.
And allow people to mediate grievances until a consensus is reached instead of govt dictating one side over
another in cases of conflicting beliefs or in 'POLITICAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST'

Jeez.

 

[dblack]

The case law that recognizes reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on the rights enshrined in the First Amendment is consensus as to the proper limits of government.

Delusion is a powerful draw. But if others aren't on board, it doesn't matter.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

A google search for "New England Body of Liberties" comes up with nothing- and you of course provide no link
Perhaps you could cite an an actual law that was in effect in the United States- that actually prohibited the marriage of same sex couples?

You know- like you claimed existed?

Here was your quote again

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

Still waiting for you to step up and prove your claim.

 

[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.

A google search for "New England Body of Liberties" comes up with nothing- and you of course provide no link
Perhaps you could cite an an actual law that was in effect in the United States- that actually prohibited the marriage of same sex couples?

You know- like you claimed existed?

Here was your quote again

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

Still waiting for you to step up and prove your claim.

By the document, stay off Google, and if you have to Google it, you should not be engaging me.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

A google search for "New England Body of Liberties" comes up with nothing- and you of course provide no link
Perhaps you could cite an an actual law that was in effect in the United States- that actually prohibited the marriage of same sex couples?

You know- like you claimed existed?

Here was your quote again

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

Still waiting for you to step up and prove your claim.

By the document, stay off Google, and if you have to Google it, you should not be engaging me.

yeah- not surprised that you don't want to provide an actual citation or link.

I should just take your word for it......LOL

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

Even if those laws existed, which is clearly not the case, they would have no bearing on the fact that today such laws are un-Constitutional.

 

[Tennyson]

Same-sex marriage has been against the law in since the 1600s. For those laws to be unconstitutional via a federal court means that this country is ruled by the rule of man and our written Constitution has been converted to a worthless piece of parchment.

This is a liberal's dream as we move to a dictator style country with no barrier between whoever is in power and our constitutionally protected rights.

 

[Faun]

Same-sex marriage has been against the law in since the 1600s. For those laws to be unconstitutional via a federal court means that this country is ruled by the rule of man and our written Constitution has been converted to a worthless piece of parchment.

This is a liberal's dream as we move to a dictator style country with no barrier between whoever is in power and our constitutionally protected rights.

So what if such laws existed? Their Constitutionality had not been tested and referencing laws going back to the 1600's is beyond stupid since relevant Constitutional clauses, such as those in the 14th Amendment protecting equality, didn't even exist yet.

 

[Tennyson]

Same-sex marriage has been against the law in since the 1600s. For those laws to be unconstitutional via a federal court means that this country is ruled by the rule of man and our written Constitution has been converted to a worthless piece of parchment.

This is a liberal's dream as we move to a dictator style country with no barrier between whoever is in power and our constitutionally protected rights.

So what if such laws existed? Their Constitutionality had not been tested and referencing laws going back to the 1600's is beyond stupid since relevant Constitutional clauses, such as those in the 14th Amendment protecting equality, didn't even exist yet.

Those were based on English common laws that were used until the states converted them to statutory laws after 1776 and after the ratification of the Constitution. The equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applied to judicial proceedings, not the laws.

 

[Faun]

Same-sex marriage has been against the law in since the 1600s. For those laws to be unconstitutional via a federal court means that this country is ruled by the rule of man and our written Constitution has been converted to a worthless piece of parchment.

This is a liberal's dream as we move to a dictator style country with no barrier between whoever is in power and our constitutionally protected rights.

So what if such laws existed? Their Constitutionality had not been tested and referencing laws going back to the 1600's is beyond stupid since relevant Constitutional clauses, such as those in the 14th Amendment protecting equality, didn't even exist yet.

Those were based on English common laws that were used until the states converted them to statutory laws after 1776 and after the ratification of the Constitution. The equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applied to judicial proceedings, not the laws.

Meaning those do not apply to our current Constitution, which laid the groundwork for all laws applicable in these united states. Thanks for playing.

 

[Tennyson]

Same-sex marriage has been against the law in since the 1600s. For those laws to be unconstitutional via a federal court means that this country is ruled by the rule of man and our written Constitution has been converted to a worthless piece of parchment.

This is a liberal's dream as we move to a dictator style country with no barrier between whoever is in power and our constitutionally protected rights.

So what if such laws existed? Their Constitutionality had not been tested and referencing laws going back to the 1600's is beyond stupid since relevant Constitutional clauses, such as those in the 14th Amendment protecting equality, didn't even exist yet.

Those were based on English common laws that were used until the states converted them to statutory laws after 1776 and after the ratification of the Constitution. The equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applied to judicial proceedings, not the laws.

Meaning those do not apply to our current Constitution, which laid the groundwork for all laws applicable in these united states. Thanks for playing.

I feel really foolish now. I need your help. I was not aware that we had a new Constitution. I have been foolishly using the old one. Can you provide me with the current Constitution so I can be informed?

 

[Faun]

Same-sex marriage has been against the law in since the 1600s. For those laws to be unconstitutional via a federal court means that this country is ruled by the rule of man and our written Constitution has been converted to a worthless piece of parchment.

This is a liberal's dream as we move to a dictator style country with no barrier between whoever is in power and our constitutionally protected rights.

So what if such laws existed? Their Constitutionality had not been tested and referencing laws going back to the 1600's is beyond stupid since relevant Constitutional clauses, such as those in the 14th Amendment protecting equality, didn't even exist yet.

Those were based on English common laws that were used until the states converted them to statutory laws after 1776 and after the ratification of the Constitution. The equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applied to judicial proceedings, not the laws.

Meaning those do not apply to our current Constitution, which laid the groundwork for all laws applicable in these united states. Thanks for playing.

I feel really foolish now. I need your help. I was not aware that we had a new Constitution. I have been foolishly using the old one. Can you provide me with the current Constitution so I can be informed?

It would be my pleasure...

The Constitution of the United States

Ratified in 1788.

You're welcome.

 

[DOTR]

After 86 pages can we sum it up thusly...no matter what you feel, no matter how you vote, no matter what laws you write in the end you will be ruled by the Supreme Court.
The British are going through the same thing now. Voted for Brexit but leftists are still fighting them. There is little they can do. And like in the US if they do get close to success the ruling elite will simply import more voters to undo it.
I think it is time for a different tactic. Maybe Trump is the beginning of it. And I dont think liberals will like it...which makes it all the better.

 

[DOTR]

And make no mistake. Trump is riding the wave but Trump is not the wave.