Gay marriage is not a constitutional right

[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?

It would be my pleasure...

The Constitution of the United States

Ratified in 1788.

You're welcome.

Oh that Constitution. The one where the states kept all their sovereignty they had under the Articles of Confederation except for the limited powers they ceded in Article I, Section 8, which is why the states had laws against same-sex marriage until 2015. Got it.

 

[bodecea]

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'mon! IF a Christer isn't free to discriminate against other American citizens because of made-up religious reasons...are any of us truly free?

 

[dblack]

C'mon! IF a Christer isn't free to discriminate against other American citizens because of made-up religious reasons...are any of us truly free?

Nope. And it's sad that liberals no longer get that.

 

[DOTR]

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.

Oh that Constitution. The one where the states kept all their sovereignty they had under the Articles of Confederation except for the limited powers they ceded in Article I, Section 8, which is why the states had laws against same-sex marriage until 2015. Got it.

48 states also had laws against abortion, approved by their citizens, until the Supreme Court overturned them.

 

[Syriusly]

Same-sex marriage has been against the law in since the 1600s.

I have asked for proof of that claim for days now- and you haven't provided a single citation to back up your claim. Odd isn't it that you can pull out stuff from the Federalists papers but can't provide a single legal citation to back up your claim?

Or answer why 30 states suddenly in the last 20 years passed laws against same sex marriage?

 

[Syriusly]

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..

Correction- no matter how much you stomp your feet that Supreme Court can still overturn unconstitutional laws- both federal and state.

 

[emilynghiem]

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'mon! IF a Christer isn't free to discriminate against other American citizens because of made-up religious reasons...are any of us truly free?

Hi bodecea And do you recognize that's how Christians feel
when they are told to reduce prayer in schools to "moment of silence"
because of other people's "personal reasons" --
the rejection of crosses, of mention of God and creation,
that people have enforced the right to REMOVE from public institutions
because of faith based biased.

The right to life that many people DO believe includes unborn in the womb,
which is faith based, so it is legally REMOVED and the limits on life
are kept at BIRTH.

So gender determined at BIRTH is the belief of some people.
while gender identity determined otherwise is the belief of others.

If both groups want equal right to "discriminate" against the other belief,
shouldn't these be REMOVED from govt and keep
the legal standard where they agree?

If "marriage laws" were reduced to "civil unions and social contracts"
then both sides would be equally free to choose or discriminate in private
as with Hindus and Muslims who choose or reject pork or beef.

Buddhists and Vegans set up their own places where they promote
not eating animal products, in accordance with their beliefs. They
remain free to discriminate and not patronize businesses that profit off the meat industry.

PETA is hated and harassed also for pushing those beliefs, often in controversial
or even criminal ways of vandalism and assault. But they aren't trying to
force govt to establish their beliefs in veganism or vegetarianism as a protected class,
that can't be discriminated against.

People have the right to choose and not be punished by govt if
they reject vegetarian beliefs.

Just like Atheists have the right to reject Christian beliefs
"for whatever reason" because these are faith based and a personal choice.

Do you get the idea bodecea

Sure, PETA activists get harassed, Occupy, Tea Party, etc.
Christians and prolife, anyone pro prayer and pro God or Creation
also have felt DISCRIMINATED against, harassed and EXCLUDED
FROM PUBLIC POLICY.

so if you want equality, that's how everyone else has had
to defend their views, without help of Govt to identify
THEIR beliefs as a special class.

Now bodecea if you want to argue as I do that
"religious freedom" is discriminatory if it ONLY applies
to "members of recognized religions" such as Christianity,
Buddhism, etc. I already AGREE with you.

if Atheists or nontheists don't belong to any group,
or JW or UU are smaller and have not the means of defending
their beliefs, or Buddhists JW or Christians don't believe in suing,
these individuals would not have "equal protections of the law."

I would AGREE that IS discrimination by CREED
to favor Christians more than others who don't have a collective identity
or legal/political resources to fight.

And on that note, I argue the political parties have been
discriminating by creed for a long time, and even colluded
and conspired to violate equal civil rights of other citizens
who WEREN'T represented by Congressional decisions
and spending, such as the Iraqi War contracts and military
spending and the ACA and trillions paid to corporate insurance.

So if you really cared to end discrimination by creed
there is a bigger battle to recognize political beliefs
equally as religious beliefs, and possibly sue both major
parties for racking up trillions in debts and damages
at taxpayers expenses. We could call for restitution to
pay back all the debts we didn't authorize which we can
show violated the political beliefs of someone in a class
action. we don't all have to agree, just collectively show
where DOMA violated beliefs, or now the court ruling on
right to marriage or right to health care discriminated
against people not treated equally with their beliefs
about right to life or right to prayer. And sue to demand
trillions in credit to pay to reform govt and correct these problems.

Even if you only want to sue to defend LGBT beliefs, we
could still build a class action with people suing to defend
beliefs in traditional marriage. We don't have to agree which
beliefs were violated by govt and party collusion to unite
and demand damages and restitution be credited back
to taxpayers for the cost of violating religious freedom
and equal protection of laws from discrimination by creed.

 

[emilynghiem]

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..

Correction- no matter how much you stomp your feet that Supreme Court can still overturn unconstitutional laws- both federal and state.

Yes Syriusly and overturning an unconstitutional ban against gay marriage
is not the same as legislative responsibility for writing a law on marriage for that state.

I asked another friend, who knows a conservative lesbian couple, where they agree
that marriage laws are states rights and not for federal govt to "legislate from the bench"

There is a difference between striking down a law that has a bias,
and ORDERING that state to rewrite the law without that bias.

It can be rewritten or reorganized through THAT STATE to remove the bias
and still not "establish the right to marriage through federal govt"

I asked them if they would join here to represent that themselves, but it's their choice
to come explain or not. It's the same as I just said it: as conservatives, they believe it is
the choice of states and not federal govt to "legislate" the laws governing marriage for that state.

So like Nevada has legalized prostitution but other states do not, or with legalized marijuana
which varies per state,
some states could agree to have
* "civil unions" but not marriage for all people or couples
(and Utah could agree to have registered domestic partnerships that extend to 3 or more adults
all running a household like an LLC with a common social or financial contract to protect the children)
* laws that allow equal marriage and gender expressions in public and govt institutions, provided that equal prayer and all other religious symbols/literature/expressions also be protected without being removed or harassed or rejected for it
So what is called "marriage" in one state could be called "civil marriage" "civil unions" "domestic partnership" "social contracts" etc in other states WITHOUT FEDERAL GOVT dictating that it has to be marriage.

That is like federal govt dictating the concept or term "prayer"
when the State of Texas agreed on "moment of silence" so the voters agreed to let that pass.

If the Federal Judges strike down a law banning prayer in schools,
that is not the same as the State legislature passing a law on how
prayer or moment of silence is implemented in THOSE schools.

Do you see the difference Syriusly
BTW I do agree that if States have an unconstitutional law that doesn't protect citizens equally
yes that is the role of Supreme Courts to strike that down, but that isn't supposed to go too far
either and override states rights and legislative separate powers to write the corrective legislation.

I compared this to a teacher striking down a wrong math answer and rejecting it.
But it still the responsibility of the student to come up with the right one.

It does not mean that "any answer you come up with to REPLACE that wrong answer"
is automatically right either. You can still come up with a wrong alternative
that is also argued as incomplete and that gets struck down AGAIN.

Ultimately it is up to the students in the class to come up with the right answers
and not for the teacher to dictate to them or they won't understand the process of
1. how to arrive at the right answer 2. how to determine right from wrong answers, where checking with the teachers helps and is their duty to make sure it's right 3. how to correct the process so they don't depend on the teacher to tell them right from wrong answers, but learn to work independently

 

[Tennyson]

Same-sex marriage has been against the law in since the 1600s.

I have asked for proof of that claim for days now- and you haven't provided a single citation to back up your claim. Odd isn't it that you can pull out stuff from the Federalists papers but can't provide a single legal citation to back up your claim?

Or answer why 30 states suddenly in the last 20 years passed laws against same sex marriage?

I did. I provided one of the laws and the pertinent language in the law.

 

[Syriusly]

Same-sex marriage has been against the law in since the 1600s.

I have asked for proof of that claim for days now- and you haven't provided a single citation to back up your claim. Odd isn't it that you can pull out stuff from the Federalists papers but can't provide a single legal citation to back up your claim?

Or answer why 30 states suddenly in the last 20 years passed laws against same sex marriage?

I did. I provided one of the laws and the pertinent language in the law.

No legal citation- the 'law' you cited doesn't even appear when searched for online. Not on Lexis.
Lexis® Web - Results for ""New England Body of Liberties""
Not on Cornell Universities legal research engine
Site

Did you make it up? Maybe.

Now why did states suddenly start passing laws against same sex marriage- if it was already illegal?

 

[Syriusly]

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..

Correction- no matter how much you stomp your feet that Supreme Court can still overturn unconstitutional laws- both federal and state.

Yes Syriusly and overturning an unconstitutional ban against gay marriage
is not the same as legislative responsibility for writing a law on marriage for that state.

Of course not- because the courts don't write law- they can only overturn illegal laws.

Just as they did in Loving v. Virginia- and just as they did in Obergefell.

That is one of the responsibilities courts have.

 

[emilynghiem]

Same-sex marriage has been against the law in since the 1600s.

I have asked for proof of that claim for days now- and you haven't provided a single citation to back up your claim. Odd isn't it that you can pull out stuff from the Federalists papers but can't provide a single legal citation to back up your claim?

Or answer why 30 states suddenly in the last 20 years passed laws against same sex marriage?

I did. I provided one of the laws and the pertinent language in the law.

No legal citation- the 'law' you cited doesn't even appear when searched for online. Not on Lexis.
Lexis® Web - Results for ""New England Body of Liberties""
Not on Cornell Universities legal research engine
Site

Did you make it up? Maybe.

Now why did states suddenly start passing laws against same sex marriage- if it was already illegal?

Dear Syriusly
the same way RFRA was passed when we already have the First Amendment.
People want to renew the contractual agreement, so they assemble petition and pass an updated
law that represents them in it in this new day and age and context.

I can also argue, Syriusly, that right to marriage like right to prayer is already in the First Amendment,
and right to equal protections already in the 14th and protection from discrimination by creed
already taught or written in some policies pursuant to Civil Rights and later developments.

But that isn't the same as establishing the right to marriage as a contractual agreement
now, and that does take the legislatures to make it statutory in written laws.

Until people reach a consensus between written laws and the social contracts
we commit to, this process will continue. people continue petitioning, by free speech
and free press, by courts and legislatures, until the spirit of the contract and the
letter of the law are in agreement and the people fulfill the level of representation and protection deemed equal.

 

[emilynghiem]

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..

Correction- no matter how much you stomp your feet that Supreme Court can still overturn unconstitutional laws- both federal and state.

Yes Syriusly and overturning an unconstitutional ban against gay marriage
is not the same as legislative responsibility for writing a law on marriage for that state.

Of course not- because the courts don't write law- they can only overturn illegal laws.

Just as they did in Loving v. Virginia- and just as they did in Obergefell.

That is one of the responsibilities courts have.

Yes Syriusly we agree on this
Where there is disagreement is whether it takes
WRITTEN laws or amendments to establish or "create" right to marriage
through govt, and it isn't just done by judges striking down other laws as unconstitutional.

 

[DOTR]

"That the several states composing the United States of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government... that this government, created by this compact, was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself, since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress" Thomas Jefferson

" ...that a spirit has, in sundry instances, been manifested by the federal government to enlarge its powers by forced constructions of the constitutional charter which defines them; and that implications have appeared of a design to expound certain general phrases (which, having been copied from the very limited grant of power in the former Articles of Confederation, were the less liable to be misconstrued) so as to destroy the meaning and effect of the particular enumeration which necessarily explains and limits the general phrases; and so as to consolidate the states, by degrees, into one sovereignty, the obvious tendency and inevitable consequence of which would be, to transform the present republican system of the United States, into an absolute, or, at best, a mixed monarchy." James Madison

I think we are there.

 

[DOTR]

Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

Does this look familiar? To the younger ones probably not. It was the Equal Rights Amendment. It was the topic of debate for years and had a very fair hearing. An exercise in self government. But, as in most cases, the leftists were soundly defeated when the American People rejected it.
Couldn't tell it today could you?
Your vote matters less now than under King George.

 

[Syriusly]

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..

Correction- no matter how much you stomp your feet that Supreme Court can still overturn unconstitutional laws- both federal and state.

Yes Syriusly and overturning an unconstitutional ban against gay marriage
is not the same as legislative responsibility for writing a law on marriage for that state.

Of course not- because the courts don't write law- they can only overturn illegal laws.

Just as they did in Loving v. Virginia- and just as they did in Obergefell.

That is one of the responsibilities courts have.

Yes Syriusly we agree on this
Where there is disagreement is whether it takes
WRITTEN laws or amendments to establish or "create" right to marriage
through govt, and it isn't just done by judges striking down other laws as unconstitutional.

Do we have a right to privacy? Do we have a right to marriage?

The Supreme Court says yes- we do- and what do they base that on?

The 9th Amendment
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The Constitution doesn't mention 'privacy'- but we do have the right to privacy- and aren't we all glad we do?
Privacy

 

[emilynghiem]

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..

Correction- no matter how much you stomp your feet that Supreme Court can still overturn unconstitutional laws- both federal and state.

Yes Syriusly and overturning an unconstitutional ban against gay marriage
is not the same as legislative responsibility for writing a law on marriage for that state.

Of course not- because the courts don't write law- they can only overturn illegal laws.

Just as they did in Loving v. Virginia- and just as they did in Obergefell.

That is one of the responsibilities courts have.

Yes Syriusly we agree on this
Where there is disagreement is whether it takes
WRITTEN laws or amendments to establish or "create" right to marriage
through govt, and it isn't just done by judges striking down other laws as unconstitutional.

Do we have a right to privacy? Do we have a right to marriage?

The Supreme Court says yes- we do- and what do they base that on?

The 9th Amendment
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The Constitution doesn't mention 'privacy'- but we do have the right to privacy- and aren't we all glad we do?
Privacy

Dear Syriusly
Where you really have these rights is where they do not depend on govt to tell you do.
If you are relying on govt, then you don't really have them because they can be taken away.

That is another aspect of political beliefs, that involve govt.

A. We have a right to marriage like we have a right to prayer.
Under religious freedom which IS BOTH a statutory written right,
and is recognized as a natural right that exists OUTSIDE of govt.
Right to life is another inalienable right that exists even if govt fails to recognize or protect it.
It happens that our Constitution does put "religious freedom" in writing so it is
both a natural right and it is written and recognized as part of Constitutional law on that level.

right to prayer and right to marriage
right to privacy and right to choose abortion
are under religious freedom as another way of saying freedom of choice
but these are not recognized by all people

These are protected as practices and beliefs under religious freedom
and equal protection against discrimination by creed
as either political beliefs or religious beliefs and practices
but these are NOT written into Constitutional laws
on the same level as religious freedom is

B. by court ruling, it is recognized not to violate these principles

that is interpreting the given laws as referenced above

But courts do not create laws or rights that require changing written laws.
court rulings are not the same as Constitutional amendments.

the right to health care the President proclaimed
is not in the Constitution, and even though the Courts
approved ACA as constitutional, this is not established
by legislative authority yet -- the legislature passed ACA
as a public health bill and it would have failed as a tax revenue bill,
but the courts approved it as a tax bill and it failed as a "general welfare"
bill that the court ruled the govt did not have authority to expand to the
degree that ACA did, it only was constitutional as a tax bill but that's
not how it was passed. So even that is up for debate because
there is still not a consensus on it, and the public has generally
NOT approved to pay mandates toward corporate insurance instead of paying for health care

Syriusly I think you and I believe the same things
should be protected, but we don't agree on the process.

I do believe these rights shouldn't be violated,
but the way it's being lobbied through courts is backwards.
and it's causing the very religious imposition from the opposite side
that was rejected in the first place. Two wrongs don't make it right, they make it worse.

We need to correct this at the state and legislative levels.
Not take shortcuts hoping some court ruling is going to save us the trouble.
There are no short cuts.

You cannot rely or authorize judges on benches to act as popes to legislate beliefs
and endorse some over others.

We have to accept equal responsibility for our own beliefs.
It is just as wrong for Christians to expect govt to defend them from
rejection and harassment by people who don't believe in Christianity
as it is for LGBT to expect govt to defend them from
rejection and harassment by people who don't believe in homosexuality.

Either agree to let both expressions be a free choice in public
and public institutions, or bar govt from banning endorsing
establishing prohibiting or otherwise legislating on either one.

There is no shortcut to reaching an agreement among ourselves
so any contract we endorse and enforce is by FREE and INFORMED consent
of the people, and is not coerced by outside party under penalty of law.

 

[Syriusly]

[
You cannot rely or authorize judges on benches to act as popes to legislate beliefs
and endorse some over others..

We rely upon judges for among other things, to rule on the Constitution.

Judges are not legislating anything.

They are overturning unconstitutional laws.

Judges have done this in a myriad of issues- including
Birth Control
Voting rights
Gun rights
Marriage law

 

[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..

Correction- no matter how much you stomp your feet that Supreme Court can still overturn unconstitutional laws- both federal and state.

Yes Syriusly and overturning an unconstitutional ban against gay marriage
is not the same as legislative responsibility for writing a law on marriage for that state.

Of course not- because the courts don't write law- they can only overturn illegal laws.

Just as they did in Loving v. Virginia- and just as they did in Obergefell.

That is one of the responsibilities courts have.

Yes Syriusly we agree on this
Where there is disagreement is whether it takes
WRITTEN laws or amendments to establish or "create" right to marriage
through govt, and it isn't just done by judges striking down other laws as unconstitutional.

Do we have a right to privacy? Do we have a right to marriage?

The Supreme Court says yes- we do- and what do they base that on?

The 9th Amendment
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The Constitution doesn't mention 'privacy'- but we do have the right to privacy- and aren't we all glad we do?
Privacy

Only if your state says so. The 9th amendment was intended to protect the states and people from Federal over reach. Not to be a vehicle for Federal expansion.

" That Amendment [9th] was passed not to broaden the powers of this Court or any other department of "the General Government," but, as every student of history knows, to assure the people that the Constitution in all its provisions was intended to limit the Federal Government...there is no provision of the Constitution which either expressly or impliedly vests power in this Court to sit as a supervisory agency over acts of duly constituted legislative bodies and set aside their laws because of the Court's belief that the legislative policies adopted are unreasonable, unwise, arbitrary, capricious or irrational. The adoption of such a loose flexible. uncontrolled standard for holding laws unconstitutional, if ever it is finally achieved, will amount to a great unconstitutional shift of power to the courts which I believe and am constrained to say will be bad for the courts, and worse for the country. Subjecting federal and state laws to such an unrestrained and unrestrainable judicial control as to the wisdom of legislative enactments would, I fear, jeopardize the separation of governmental powers that the Framers set up, and, at the same time, threaten to take away much of the power of States to govern themselves which the Constitution plainly intended them to have." Justice Hugo Black

Ahhh to have men like that in government again.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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..

Correction- no matter how much you stomp your feet that Supreme Court can still overturn unconstitutional laws- both federal and state.

Yes Syriusly and overturning an unconstitutional ban against gay marriage
is not the same as legislative responsibility for writing a law on marriage for that state.

Of course not- because the courts don't write law- they can only overturn illegal laws.

Just as they did in Loving v. Virginia- and just as they did in Obergefell.

That is one of the responsibilities courts have.

Yes Syriusly we agree on this
Where there is disagreement is whether it takes
WRITTEN laws or amendments to establish or "create" right to marriage
through govt, and it isn't just done by judges striking down other laws as unconstitutional.

The right to marry is codified by the Fifth Amendment’s Liberty Clause and the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment, a right immune from attack by government, as acknowledged by the Supreme Court.

The role of the courts and the doctrine of judicial review render the notion of ‘amending’ the Constitution to address all conflicts and controversies is ridiculous, ignorant nonsense – a Federal Constitution with 10,000 ‘amendments’ would be useless and unworkable.