Gay marriage is not a constitutional right

[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.

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.

Thank you C_Clayton_Jones
If one practices right to marriage the same way Christians
are asked to practice right to prayer, this is already protected.

Now, what do you think of this comparison
* if Christians in Texas who want right to prayer in schools
are only allowed to implement "moments of silence"
because of people who don't agree with Christian prayer
* why not ask people who want right to marriage in govt
to settle for "civil unions and contracts"
because of people who don't agree with gay marriage

would that be fair.
or are you going to do as Syriusly is trying to do
and cite specific case laws and judicial rulings
that defend right to marriage and try to use that
to overrule the States rights to implement
"moment of silence" as a secular alternative to prayer
and "civil unions" as a secular alternative to marriage

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

The issue of states denying same-sex couples access to marriage law gay Americans are eligible to participate in has nothing to do with the 9th Amendment; this is 14th Amendment case law.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

The issue of states denying same-sex couples access to marriage law gay Americans are eligible to participate in has nothing to do with the 9th Amendment; this is 14th Amendment case law.

Dear C_Clayton_Jones
Don't laws have to respect ALL the other Constitutional laws and principles and standards?
If your interpretation is solid, shouldn't it be consistent with the 1st and 10th as well as the 9th?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

Nonsense.

As already correctly noted: we appropriately rely on judges and justices to follow Constitutional case law, the doctrine of judicial review, and the rule of law to safeguard citizens’ rights and protected liberties from government overreach and excess.

It is government which acts first in bad faith, by enacting measures repugnant to the Constitution, disadvantaging citizens for no other reason than who they are.

And those wrongfully disadvantaged by government have the right to seek relief in Federal court, where the appellate courts review the constitutionality of such laws, and invalidate measures determined to be un-Constitutional in accordance with the Constitution and its case law.

No ‘beliefs’ are being ‘legislated,’ courts do not ‘legislate.’

 

[emilynghiem]

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

Nonsense.

As already correctly noted: we appropriately rely on judges and justices to follow Constitutional case law, the doctrine of judicial review, and the rule of law to safeguard citizens’ rights and protected liberties from government overreach and excess.

It is government which acts first in bad faith, by enacting measures repugnant to the Constitution, disadvantaging citizens for no other reason than who they are.

And those wrongfully disadvantaged by government have the right to seek relief in Federal court, where the appellate courts review the constitutionality of such laws, and invalidate measures determined to be un-Constitutional in accordance with the Constitution and its case law.

No ‘beliefs’ are being ‘legislated,’ courts do not ‘legislate.’

Dear C_Clayton_Jones
we agree but are talking past each other.

Where we disagree is you still want to defend certain beliefs
above others, by citing case law that defends your beliefs in ways that you would attack other beliefs.

Let me ask you this way,
if courts used similar cases to establish
"right to prayer" the same way it is argued that "right to marriage" is established,
would you argue that
right to prayer still depends on how states legislate it.

or would you argue the court overstepped
and right to prayer is not a constitutional right
and is already protected under religious freedom.

 

[Tennyson]

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

The Fifth Amendment does mention privacy. It is described and and defined based of of writs of assistance, John Wilkes and Number 45, and Charles Paxton.

The Ninth Amendment regarded state's rights by limiting the interpretation powers of Article I, Section 8.

 

[emilynghiem]

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

The Fifth Amendment does mention privacy. It is described and and defined based of of writs of assistance, John Wilkes and Number 45, and Charles Paxton.

The Ninth Amendment regarded state's rights by limiting the interpretation powers of Article I, Section 8.

Dear Tennyson and Syriusly
Instead of right to privacy, I would
compare it with "substantive due process" as in why Roe V Wade
struck down laws on abortion. in that case the due process to defend the woman by
showing mitigating circumstances would involve govt infringing in her personal life.

The marriage laws beliefs and issues also delve into people's personal
preferences and beliefs they shouldn't have to justify for govt.
If homosexual or transgender people have to justify their relations or beliefs,
it is like depriving them of liberty to exercise these freely without them having committed a crime first.

The problem is not imposing laws that overreach and have this same
effect, penalizing people for beliefs against homosexuality as if that is a crime.

Instead of calling it a right to privacy, it is a matter of keeping private beliefs out of govt
so this infringement doesn't impose on either side.

Neither side should have to defend or justify beliefs to govt.
the right to marriage like right to prayer should be practiced in private
and not implement it in public institutions and policy unless there is consent
and agreement not to penalize impose or exclude one person's beliefs over another.

 

[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.

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?

Perhaps I can give you a few more examples of pre-Constitution laws and post-Constitution laws since you are consumed regarding the New England Body of Liberties.

The states started passing these laws because of the anti-constitutional ruling of Lawrence v. Texas. The state’s laws prohibiting same-sex marriages rested on their sodomy laws.

Again with the New England Body of Liberties and a few more laws. Every single state had a sodomy law on the books in 1960 as well.

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 appointed to become one flesh, whether it be by abusing the contrary part of a grown woman, or child of either sex, or unripe vessel of a girle, wherein the natural use of the woman is left, which God hath ordained for the propagation of posterity, and Sodomiticall filthinesse (tending to the destruction of the race of mankind) is committed by a kind of rape, nature being forced, though the will were inticed,' every such person shall be put to death. Or if any man shall act upon himself; and in the sight of others 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 others, by any kind of sinfulthinesse, he shall be punished according to the nature of the offence; or if the case considered with the aggravating circumstances, 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.

Rhode Island statute of 1647:

Touching Whoremongers. First of sodomy, which is forbidden by this present Assembly throughout the whole colony, and by sundry statutes of England 25 Hen. 8, 6: 5 Eliz 17. It is a vile affection, whereby men given up thereto leave the natural use of women and burn in their lusts toward another, and so men with men work that which is unseemly, as that Doctor of the Gentiles [St. Paul] in his letter to the Romans once spake, i. 27. The penalty concluded by that state under whose authority we are is felony of death without remedy. See 5 Eliz 17.(2)

​

Post Constitution


Laws of the State of New York 1787:

BE it enacted by the people of the state of New-York, represented in senate and assembly, and it is hereby enabled by the authority of the same, That the detestable and abominable vice of buggery, committed with mankind or beast, shall be from henceforth adjudged felony; and such order and form process therein, shall be used against the offenders, as in cases of felony at the common law; and that every person being thereof convicted, by verdict, confession or outlawry, shall be hanged by the neck, until he or she shall be dead.​

Rhode Island's Public Laws of 1798:

That every person who shall be convicted of sodomy, or of being accessary thereto before the fact, shall, for the first offence, be carried to the gallows in a cart, and set upon the said gallows, for a space of time not exceeding four hours, and thence to the common goal, there to be confined for a term not exceeding three years, and shall be grievously fined at the discretion of the Court; and for the second offense shall suffer death.​

​

 

[Tennyson]

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

The Fifth Amendment does mention privacy. It is described and and defined based of of writs of assistance, John Wilkes and Number 45, and Charles Paxton.

The Ninth Amendment regarded state's rights by limiting the interpretation powers of Article I, Section 8.

Dear Tennyson and Syriusly
Instead of right to privacy, I would
compare it with "substantive due process" as in why Roe V Wade
struck down laws on abortion.

If homosexual or transgender people have to justify their relations or beliefs,
it is like depriving them of liberty to exercise these freely without them having committed a crime first.

The problem is not imposing laws that overreach and have this same
effect, penalizing people for beliefs against homosexuality as if that is a crime.

Instead of calling it a right to privacy, it is a matter of keeping private beliefs out of govt
so this infringement doesn't impose on either side.

Neither side should have to defend or justify beliefs to govt.
the right to marriage like right to prayer should be practiced in private
and not implement it in public institutions and policy unless there is consent
and agreement not to penalize impose or exclude one person's beliefs over another.

Emilynghiem,

Substantive due process did not exist until the Twentieth Century with Lochner v New York, and then it was only used for economic rulings. It was also used to shoot down FDR's New Deal in the early and mid 1930s. It is unfair to retroactively substantive due process to the procedural due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Fifth Amendment.

 

[Tennyson]

[
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

The issue of birth control, gun laws, and marriage laws are all constitutional laws and are not under the purview of any branch of the federal government.

Nowhere in the Constitution has voting rights been conferred.

 

[Tennyson]

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.

The right to marry is not codified in the Fifth Amendment’s liberty clause nor is it codified in the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection and due process clauses. The preamble of the Bill of Rights precludes the Fifth Amendment codifying marriage laws; the very first sentence of the Bill of Rights precludes the Fifth Amendment from codifying marriage laws; when Madison first submitted the Bill of Rights, he wrote the Bill of Rights to apply certain amendments with a rights of conscience concept to the states, and it was summarily and soundly rejected:

Fifthly, That in article 1st, section 10, between clauses 1 and 2, be inserted this clause, to wit:

No State shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases.​

Marshall also expressed clearly that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states, and more specifically the Fifth Amendment:

Barron v Baltimore, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243 (1833)

We are of opinion that the provision in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution declaring that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation is intended solely as a limitation on the exercise of power by the Government of the United States, and is not applicable to the legislation of the States. We are therefore of opinion that there is no repugnancy between the several acts of the general assembly of Maryland, given in evidence by the defendants at the trial of this cause, in the court of that State, and the Constitution of the United States. This court, therefore, has no jurisdiction of the cause, and it is dismissed.

Had Congress engaged in the extraordinary occupation of improving the Constitutions of the several States by affording the people additional protection from the exercise of power by their own governments in matters which concerned themselves alone, they would have declared this purpose in plain and intelligible language.

In compliance with a sentiment thus generally expressed, to quiet fears thus extensively entertained, amendments were proposed by the required majority in Congress and adopted by the States. These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the State governments. This court cannot so apply them.​

 

[Tennyson]

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

Nonsense.

As already correctly noted: we appropriately rely on judges and justices to follow Constitutional case law, the doctrine of judicial review, and the rule of law to safeguard citizens’ rights and protected liberties from government overreach and excess.

It is government which acts first in bad faith, by enacting measures repugnant to the Constitution, disadvantaging citizens for no other reason than who they are.

And those wrongfully disadvantaged by government have the right to seek relief in Federal court, where the appellate courts review the constitutionality of such laws, and invalidate measures determined to be un-Constitutional in accordance with the Constitution and its case law.

No ‘beliefs’ are being ‘legislated,’ courts do not ‘legislate.’

There is no constitutional doctrine or concept of following case law regarding constitutional law. Every founder to the man who opined on how to interpret and apply constitutional law expressly stated to go back to the debates on the Constitution. The living Constitution that you advocate is antithetical to the rule of law as is stare decisis.

 

[DOTR]

Its very strange that Minot vs Happersett in 1874 found nothing in the 14th Amendment empowering the court to overrule states on these issues. Not even the right to vote for women...even though they are citizens as fully as men.

(1) The states ratified the constitution with existing laws and, after the 14th amendment was imposed, admitted or readmitted new states status quo (suffrage or marriage)

"No new state has ever been admitted to the Union which has conferred the right of suffrage upon women, and this has never been considered a valid objection to her admission"
"These governments the Constitution did not change. They were accepted precisely as they were, and it is therefore to be presumed that they were such as it was the duty of the states to provide"

As any fool (excludes liberals I suppose) can see every state accepted into the Union did so with a Constitution and legal system recognizing only traditional marriage and all passed Constitutional muster.

(2) Long culture and practice will tell you how the founders, framers, courts, legislature and citizens meant interpretation to fall (suffrage or marriage)

"For nearly ninety years, the people have acted upon the idea that the Constitution, when it conferred citizenship, did not necessarily confer the right of suffrage. If uniform practice long continued can settle the construction of so important an instrument as the Constitution of the United States confessedly is, most certainly it has been done here."

How about 200+ years?

(3) it is not the Supreme Courts role to right wrongs or injustice but to stay within Constitutional bounds no matter how odious (or illiberal) the state law

"If the law is wrong, it ought to be changed; but the power for that is not with us... No argument as to woman's need of suffrage can be considered. We can only act upon her rights as they exist. It is not for us to look at the hardship of withholding. Our duty is at an end if we find it is within the power of a state to withhold."

"Our province is to decide what the law is, not to declare what it should be."

(4) The 14th Amendment would plainly have stated any radical changes such as women's suffrage. Homosexual marriage licenses are certainly a "radical change"

" ...it cannot for a moment be doubted that if it had been intended to make all citizens of the United States voters, the framers of the Constitution would not have left it to implication. So important a change in the condition of citizenship as it actually existed, if intended, would have been expressly declared."

"...certainly its abrogation would not have been left to implication. Nothing less than express language would have been employed to effect so radical a change."

So much for the new discoveries in the 14th Amendment. The men who wrote the above decision were well aware of their role and new they were limited and the government they served was limited.
Limited government. A first world idea being twisted by third world Marxist interpreters.
Dont let these kindergarten socialists and statists tell you they "discovered" something the men who wrote never put there.

 

[DOTR]

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.

Thank you C_Clayton_Jones
If one practices right to marriage the same way Christians
are asked to practice right to prayer, this is already protected.

Now, what do you think of this comparison
* if Christians in Texas who want right to prayer in schools
are only allowed to implement "moments of silence"
because of people who don't agree with Christian prayer
* why not ask people who want right to marriage in govt
to settle for "civil unions and contracts"
because of people who don't agree with gay marriage

would that be fair.
or are you going to do as Syriusly is trying to do
and cite specific case laws and judicial rulings
that defend right to marriage and try to use that
to overrule the States rights to implement
"moment of silence" as a secular alternative to prayer
and "civil unions" as a secular alternative to marriage

That is how it started...remember? They pretended to only want "civil unions". By the way the Texas was admitted to the Union with a Constitution which required all office holders to be Christian. No fault in it was found.

 

[DOTR]

[
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

The issue of birth control, gun laws, and marriage laws are all constitutional laws and are not under the purview of any branch of the federal government.

Nowhere in the Constitution has voting rights been conferred.

You have very simply stated the truth of the matter. The Federal Government is under the Constitution. Not vice versa.

 

[emilynghiem]

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

Nonsense.

As already correctly noted: we appropriately rely on judges and justices to follow Constitutional case law, the doctrine of judicial review, and the rule of law to safeguard citizens’ rights and protected liberties from government overreach and excess.

It is government which acts first in bad faith, by enacting measures repugnant to the Constitution, disadvantaging citizens for no other reason than who they are.

And those wrongfully disadvantaged by government have the right to seek relief in Federal court, where the appellate courts review the constitutionality of such laws, and invalidate measures determined to be un-Constitutional in accordance with the Constitution and its case law.

No ‘beliefs’ are being ‘legislated,’ courts do not ‘legislate.’

There is no constitutional doctrine or concept of following case law regarding constitutional law. Every founder to the man who opined on how to interpret and apply constitutional law expressly stated to go back to the debates on the Constitution. The living Constitution that you advocate is antithetical to the rule of law as is stare decisis.

Dear Tennyson and C_Clayton_Jones
It all boils down to consent of the governed.
If CCJ has certain beliefs, those are still protected by free exercise of religion
for CCJ and other believers of same to follow and exercise freely.

The problem is when said beliefs concerning govt are IMPLEMENTED THROUGH GOVT.
It is only fair to do so where there is CONSENT of other citizens with equal beliefs and
equal right to exercise and defend those.

So when beliefs come against beliefs, that's where I call for consent of the governed,
and neither side has the right to abuse govt to bully over the beliefs of the other citizens or groups.

I am more than glad to have both of you here to discuss these issues in full detail
including citations to history and law. Thank you so much for that.

I will try to go back and thank all your messages. This is very enriching enlightening and educational.
Please keep up the excellent posts!

 

[Syriusly]

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

The Fifth Amendment does mention privacy. It is described and and defined based of of writs of assistance, John Wilkes and Number 45, and Charles Paxton.

The Ninth Amendment regarded state's rights by limiting the interpretation powers of Article I, Section 8.

Not one mention of privacy

5th Amendment
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

 

[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?

Perhaps I can give you a few more examples of pre-Constitution laws and post-Constitution laws since you are consumed regarding the New England Body of Liberties.

Not consumed- I am enjoying pointing out that you cited a law that doesn't appear in any legal search engine- so support your claim that laws against same sex marriage have existed in the United States since the 1600's.

 

[Syriusly]

[
Again with the New England Body of Liberties and a few more laws. Every single state had a sodomy law on the books in 1960 as well.

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 appointed to become one flesh, whether it be by abusing the contrary part of a grown woman, or child of either sex, or unripe vessel of a girle, wherein the natural use of the woman is left, which God hath ordained for the propagation of posterity, and Sodomiticall filthinesse (tending to the destruction of the race of mankind) is committed by a kind of rape, nature being forced, though the will were inticed,' every such person shall be put to death. Or if any man shall act upon himself; and in the sight of others 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 others, by any kind of sinfulthinesse, he shall be punished according to the nature of the offence; or if the case considered with the aggravating circumstances, 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.​

Again with a 'law' that doesn't exist in any legal search engine.

I am not saying that you are making it up- I am just pointing out that you posting the claim here is no evidence that this 'law' against everything from buggery to masturbation existed.

Why don't you provide an actual citation?

 

[Syriusly]

Laws of the State of New York 1787:

BE it enacted by the people of the state of New-York, represented in senate and assembly, and it is hereby enabled by the authority of the same, That the detestable and abominable vice of buggery, committed with mankind or beast, shall be from henceforth adjudged felony; and such order and form process therein, shall be used against the offenders, as in cases of felony at the common law; and that every person being thereof convicted, by verdict, confession or outlawry, shall be hanged by the neck, until he or she shall be dead.​

Rhode Island's Public Laws of 1798:

That every person who shall be convicted of sodomy, or of being accessary thereto before the fact, shall, for the first offence, be carried to the gallows in a cart, and set upon the said gallows, for a space of time not exceeding four hours, and thence to the common goal, there to be confined for a term not exceeding three years, and shall be grievously fined at the discretion of the Court; and for the second offense shall suffer death.​

Once again- you cite a law against 'buggery'- how does that apply to lesbians? Or even gay men who do not engage in 'buggery'- it applies to any person- man or woman who engages in buggery.

You know for someone who loves to argue 'law' it is amazing how you make a legal claim- that laws against same sex marriage have existed since the 1600's and you still can't find any examples to support your claim.

You know- its okay to just admit you were wrong- that you were mistaken.