Is gay marriage the most important issue in the USA?

[PaintMyHouse]

That's what you say. This is what Federalist Paper 78 says:

Interpreting the constitution is most definitely the job of the judiciary.

the federalist papers are not part of our body of law or our constitution.

The federalist papers are are certainly a better source on the role of the judiciary than you are.

The job of the SC is to determine if a lower court ruling was constitutional. it is not their job to "interpret" the words in the constitution.

And how would the court be able to determine if a lower court ruling was constitutional....if they weren't allowed to glean the meaning of the constitution?

The words of the document are clear, their intent is clear. The constitution is not subject to interpretation, it is to be taken literally in accordance with the meaning of the words in the english language.

Oh, their intent is clear. As the Federalist Papers made ludicrously obvious.

And there's no way to use the constitution save through interpretation, as much of it is ambiguous. For example, what is 'probable cause'? "Unreasonable' searches? 'Equal' protections of the law? What are the 'privileges and immunities' specifically? When exactly is a privilege and immunity 'abridged'? What are the 'reserve rights' of the 9th amendment?

These are all terms that mandate interpretation. And the process of adjudication requires that judges answer these questions.

repeating something that is wrong does not magically make it true.

1. the federalist papers have no legal validity in US law

2. the constitution is not to be "interpreted" it is to be read, understood, and followed.

The "understanding" part, that's the problem. They didn't leave us a guidebook.

Educate yourself, for once: Theories of Constitutional Interpretation

Actually they did. The Constitution was to be interpreted in accordance with Judeo/Christian ethics as practiced by the vast majority of the American Citizens as revealed biblically. To say that the Founding Fathers had no understanding of the Bible --- never read it, or considered the Bible some backward book (having no influence on the designers of the Constitution or its design) is to distort American History and destroy the very fabric of the Constitution.


The Bible and Government
Biblical Principles: Basis for America's Laws

PRINCIPLE LEGAL DOCUMENT BIBLE
Sovereign authority of God, not sovereignty of the state, or sovereignty of man Mayflower Compact, Declaration, Constitution, currency, oaths, mention of God in all 50 state constitutions, Pledge of Allegiance Ex. 18:16, 20:3, Dt. 10:20, 2 Chron. 7:14, Ps. 83:18, 91:2, Isa. 9:6-7, Dan. 4:32, Jn. 19:11, Acts 5:29, Rom. 13:1, Col 1:15-20, 1 Tim. 6:15
Existence of objective moral values, Fixed standards, Absolute truth, Sanctity of life Declaration ("unalienable" rights—life, etc., "self-evident" truths) Ex. 20:1-17, Dt. 30:19, Ps. 119:142-152, Pr. 14:34, Isa. 5:20-21, Jn. 10:10, Rom. 2:15, Heb. 13:8
Rule of law rather than authority of man Declaration, Constitution Ex. 18:24-27, Dt. 17:20, Isa. 8:19-20, Mat. 5:17-18
All men are sinners Constitutional checks and balances Gen 8:21, Jer. 17:9, Mk. 7:20-23, Rom. 3:23, 1 Jn. 1:8
All men created equal Declaration Gen. 1:26, Acts 10:34, 17:26, Gal. 3:28, 1 Peter 2:17
Judicial, legislative, and executive branches Constitution Isa. 33:22 (See Madison)
Religious freedom First Amendment 1 Timothy2:1-2
Church protected from state control (& taxation), but church to influence the state First Amendment Dt. 17:18-20, 1 Kgs. 3:28, Ezra 7:24, Neh. 8:2, 1 Sam. 7:15-10:27, 15:10-31, 2 Sam. 12:1-18, Mat. 14:3-4, Lk. 3:7-14, 11:52, Acts 4:26-29
Republican form of government and warnings against kings but in favor of Godly rulers

Constitution

Ex. 18:21, Dt. 1:13, Jud. 8:22-23, 1 Samuel 8, Pr. 11:14, 24:6
Importance of governing self and family as first level of governance First, Second, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments Mat. 18:15-18, Gal. 5:16-26, 1 Cor. 6:1-11, 1 Tim. 3:1-5, Tit. 2:1-8
Establish justice Declaration Ex. 23:1-9, Lev. 19:15, Dt. 1:17, 16:19-20, 24:17-19, 1 Sam. 8:3, 2 Sam. 8:15, 1 Kings 3:28, 10:9, Mic. 6:8, Rom. 13:4
Fair trial with witnesses Sixth Amendment Ex. 20:16, Dt. 19:15, Pr. 24:28, 25:18, Mat. 18:16
Private property rights Fifth Amendment Ex. 20:15-17
Biblical liberty, Free enterprise Declaration Lev. 25:10, Jn. 8:36, 2 Cor. 3:17, Gal. 5:1, James 1:25, 1 Peter 2:16
Creation not evolution Declaration Gen. 1:1
Biblical capitalism not Darwinian capitalism (service and fair play over strict survival of the fittest) Anti-trust laws Ex. 20:17, Mat. 20:26, 25:14-30, 2 Thes. 3:6-15, 1 Pet. 2:16
Importance of the traditional family State sodomy laws, few reasons for divorce Ex. 20:12-14, Mat. 19:1-12, Mk. 10:2-12, Rom. 1:18-2:16, 1 Cor. 7:1-40,
Religious education encouraged Northwest Ordinance Dt. 6:4-7, Pr. 22:6, Mat. 18:6, Eph. 6:4,
Servanthood not political power Concept of public servant Ex. 18:21, Rom. 13:4, Php. 2:7,
Sabbath day holy "Blue laws" Ex. 20:8
Restitution Restitution laws Lev. 6:1-5, Num. 5:5-7, Mat. 5:23-26

Please see: The Bible and Government - Faith Facts

Nonsense, total revisionist David Barton nonsense. There is no freedom of religion in Christianity, let alone guns, voting, speedy trial, due process, or freedom of speech. That is liberalism not Christianity.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Almost a month after he said he was done arguing about gay marriage- he is still here- hoping the moderators will stop what he cannot stop himself from doing.

Have you ever changed your mind before?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Right wing nut job religious right, far left bed wetters and media are infatuated with gay anything. I support gay rights and have no problem with gay marriage but agree with redfish. Let court make a decision and live with it.

Sorry, but I didn't elect the judges on the Supreme Court and I don't believe they have any right to dictate to anyone as to how the Constitution can be bent to suit their own values and opinions. The only way the Constitution should be "adjusted" is through a Constitutional Amendment. Women's suffrage took an Amendment as did Emancipation. The judges didn't just let it slide by.

Interpreting the constitution is the job of the court. Says who?

Says the Fedearlist papers.

Wrong, the job of the court is to determine whether current law is being applied in accordance with the constitution. It is NOT their job to interpret the constitution.

That's what you say. This is what Federalist Paper 78 says:

The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body.

The Federalist 78

Interpreting the constitution is most definitely the job of the judiciary.

the federalist papers are not part of our body of law or our constitution.

The job of the SC is to determine if a lower court ruling was constitutional. it is not their job to "interpret" the words in the constitution. The words of the document are clear, their intent is clear. The constitution is not subject to interpretation, it is to be taken literally in accordance with the meaning of the words in the english language.

Nonsense.

All perceptions of the Constitution are an interpretation, including a 'literalist' interpretation.

The mistake you and others on the right make is to believe that the Constitution is the 'beginning,' when in fact it's the culmination of centuries of Anglo-American judicial tradition; the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as interpreted by judges using both its text and history, subject to the crucible of logic and reason, resulting in Constitutional doctrine which have withstood centuries of judicial review, and afford jurists today the guidance to determine whether or not a given law comports with the Constitution and this case law.

It's about objective, documented facts and evidence, it's about what can be proven in a court of law, and it's about what's logical, reasonable, and consistent with the Constitution and its case law.

There is no objective, documented evidence in support of denying same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in, there is no rational, logical, reasonable motive behind the effort violate the 14th Amendment rights of gay Americans, and there is nothing in the Constitution, its text or history, or in 14th Amendment jurisprudence, which warrants upholding measures whose sole intent is to make gay Americans different from everyone else.

 

[Gadawg73]

Institution of marriage was destroyed long before gay marriage was discussed. Back when women could not vote, serve on juries and hold professional jobs. For thousands of years. Gay marriage affects no heterosexual marriage of the "institution" of marriage, WTF that is. Institutions are prisons and asylums so they at least got that part right.

Guess you've never been married...

39 years

 

[Gadawg73]

Right wing nut job religious right, far left bed wetters and media are infatuated with gay anything. I support gay rights and have no problem with gay marriage but agree with redfish. Let court make a decision and live with it.

Sorry, but I didn't elect the judges on the Supreme Court and I don't believe they have any right to dictate to anyone as to how the Constitution can be bent to suit their own values and opinions. The only way the Constitution should be "adjusted" is through a Constitutional Amendment. Women's suffrage took an Amendment as did Emancipation. The judges didn't just let it slide by.

Interpreting the constitution is the job of the court. Says who?

Says the Fedearlist papers.

Wrong, the job of the court is to determine whether current law is being applied in accordance with the constitution. It is NOT their job to interpret the constitution.

I know its a subtle difference, but it is a significant difference.

U have it half right.
Court interprets the Constitution, which is the law of the land, to determine if current state laws comply with the Constitution. What Court should not do is stretch the Constitution, with claims that it is evolving and is a living document, to fit any and all claims of equal rights. Marriage is different in many ways as it is a religious sacred vow to many where in reality it is a legal contract.

 

[Gadawg73]

Laws are not interpreted by what Websters Dictionary says.

 

[Redfish]

Laws are not interpreted by what Websters Dictionary says.

bullshit, the meanings of the words of laws are interpreted in accordance with the definitions of those words in the english language.

Laws are to be taken literally, a court does not have the charter to try to "interpret" what the drafters of the law were thinking at the time.

 

[Redfish]

Right wing nut job religious right, far left bed wetters and media are infatuated with gay anything. I support gay rights and have no problem with gay marriage but agree with redfish. Let court make a decision and live with it.

Sorry, but I didn't elect the judges on the Supreme Court and I don't believe they have any right to dictate to anyone as to how the Constitution can be bent to suit their own values and opinions. The only way the Constitution should be "adjusted" is through a Constitutional Amendment. Women's suffrage took an Amendment as did Emancipation. The judges didn't just let it slide by.

Interpreting the constitution is the job of the court. Says who?

Says the Fedearlist papers.

Wrong, the job of the court is to determine whether current law is being applied in accordance with the constitution. It is NOT their job to interpret the constitution.

I know its a subtle difference, but it is a significant difference.

U have it half right.
Court interprets the Constitution, which is the law of the land, to determine if current state laws comply with the Constitution. What Court should not do is stretch the Constitution, with claims that it is evolving and is a living document, to fit any and all claims of equal rights. Marriage is different in many ways as it is a religious sacred vow to many where in reality it is a legal contract.

Look up the word "marriage" in any dictionary. You will not find any definition that includes same sex couples.

A gay union, while a valid legal document, is not a marriage.

Calling a duck a giraffe does not make it a giraffe.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Nonsense.

All perceptions of the Constitution are an interpretation, including a 'literalist' interpretation.

ROFLMNAO!

Relativism ON PARADE!

 

[Redfish]

Almost a month after he said he was done arguing about gay marriage- he is still here- hoping the moderators will stop what he cannot stop himself from doing.

Have you ever changed your mind before?

thanks, but these radical leftists don't bother me with their insults. I just consider the source and laugh at them.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Almost a month after he said he was done arguing about gay marriage- he is still here- hoping the moderators will stop what he cannot stop himself from doing.

Have you ever changed your mind before?

thanks, but these radical leftists don't bother me with their insults. I just consider the source and laugh at them.

Well that does demonstrates your rational nature and there's no downside to THAT!

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Right wing nut job religious right, far left bed wetters and media are infatuated with gay anything. I support gay rights and have no problem with gay marriage but agree with redfish. Let court make a decision and live with it.

Sorry, but I didn't elect the judges on the Supreme Court and I don't believe they have any right to dictate to anyone as to how the Constitution can be bent to suit their own values and opinions. The only way the Constitution should be "adjusted" is through a Constitutional Amendment. Women's suffrage took an Amendment as did Emancipation. The judges didn't just let it slide by.

Interpreting the constitution is the job of the court. Says who?

Says the Fedearlist papers.

Wrong, the job of the court is to determine whether current law is being applied in accordance with the constitution. It is NOT their job to interpret the constitution.

I know its a subtle difference, but it is a significant difference.

U have it half right.
Court interprets the Constitution, which is the law of the land, to determine if current state laws comply with the Constitution. What Court should not do is stretch the Constitution, with claims that it is evolving and is a living document, to fit any and all claims of equal rights. Marriage is different in many ways as it is a religious sacred vow to many where in reality it is a legal contract.

There is no principle in either law or religion, which precludes a sacred vow from being a legally binding contract.

And the reason is that a legally binding contract, is a sacred vow. When one give's their word; by say signing a contract, they are pledging the scope of their value, before witnesses, not the least of which is God.

Now, did you feel that there was some distinction, that could on some level bring some relevance to pointing out a distinction, for which this is absolutely no difference?

 

[sealybobo]

Come on people. We have some real problems in this country

18 trillion in debt
half the country on some form of govt handout
deficit spending every year
no confidence in congress or the president
the mid east burning
radical islam killing thousands because or religion
more americans in poverty than ever before
hundreds of trillions in unfunded liabilities
racial violence in our cities

and we spend hours arguing about gay marriage???? WTF is wrong with us? And yes, I am guilty of it too.

I have made my last post on a gay thread. I hope many of you will follow suit. Let the court do its job and live with the rulings

We have much more important issues to deal with than whether two gays or lesbians can call their union a marriage.

why don't you talk to George W Bush and Ronald Reagan they started it when they aligned with the Moral Majority Christian bible thumpers and made gays God Guns and racism always issues don't you get it they use these issues to divide the masses the sheeple

 

[WorldWatcher]

Look up the word "marriage" in any dictionary. You will not find any definition that includes same sex couples.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Full Definition of MARRIAGE
1
a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>
Marriage Definition of marriage by Merriam-Webster

Oxford English Dictionary
Definition of marriage in English:
noun
legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship:
marriage definition of marriage in Oxford dictionary American English US


>>>>

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Right wing nut job religious right, far left bed wetters and media are infatuated with gay anything. I support gay rights and have no problem with gay marriage but agree with redfish. Let court make a decision and live with it.

Sorry, but I didn't elect the judges on the Supreme Court and I don't believe they have any right to dictate to anyone as to how the Constitution can be bent to suit their own values and opinions. The only way the Constitution should be "adjusted" is through a Constitutional Amendment. Women's suffrage took an Amendment as did Emancipation. The judges didn't just let it slide by.

Interpreting the constitution is the job of the court. Says who?

Says the Fedearlist papers.

Wrong, the job of the court is to determine whether current law is being applied in accordance with the constitution. It is NOT their job to interpret the constitution.

I know its a subtle difference, but it is a significant difference.

U have it half right.
Court interprets the Constitution, which is the law of the land, to determine if current state laws comply with the Constitution. What Court should not do is stretch the Constitution, with claims that it is evolving and is a living document, to fit any and all claims of equal rights. Marriage is different in many ways as it is a religious sacred vow to many where in reality it is a legal contract.

Look up the word "marriage" in any dictionary. You will not find any definition that includes same sex couples.

A gay union, while a valid legal document, is not a marriage.

Calling a duck a giraffe does not make it a giraffe.

Sadly, Webster's has recently revised the definition of Marriage to include the joining of homo-gender sexual deviants.

Essentially, Webster's has redefined marriage to mean anything to anyone... thus effectively rendering the term meaningless. Which is the goal, of course.

It is the same as Leftist claiming themselves to be 'Americans'. To do so they need only reduce the meaning of the term to meaningless... referencing nothing beyond geography... which is to say someone present in 'The Americas', or at best, equating such with 'citizenship'. As if being born here, in any way correlates to what America means and adhering to the principles that define such, to rightly claim the title: American.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Look up the word "marriage" in any dictionary. You will not find any definition that includes same sex couples.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Full Definition of MARRIAGE
1
a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>
Marriage Definition of marriage by Merriam-Webster

Oxford English Dictionary
Definition of marriage in English:
noun
legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship:
marriage definition of marriage in Oxford dictionary American English US


>>>>

JINX!

 

[Redfish]

Look up the word "marriage" in any dictionary. You will not find any definition that includes same sex couples.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Full Definition of MARRIAGE
1
a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>
Marriage Definition of marriage by Merriam-Webster

Oxford English Dictionary
Definition of marriage in English:
noun
legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship:
marriage definition of marriage in Oxford dictionary American English US


>>>>

JINX!

that definition would include sibling marriage, parent/child marriage, cousin marriage, and any other two person relationship.............. since, for now, it limits it to two people. The next revision will eliminate the two person limitation----------watch.

 

[Redfish]

Come on people. We have some real problems in this country

18 trillion in debt
half the country on some form of govt handout
deficit spending every year
no confidence in congress or the president
the mid east burning
radical islam killing thousands because or religion
more americans in poverty than ever before
hundreds of trillions in unfunded liabilities
racial violence in our cities

and we spend hours arguing about gay marriage???? WTF is wrong with us? And yes, I am guilty of it too.

I have made my last post on a gay thread. I hope many of you will follow suit. Let the court do its job and live with the rulings

We have much more important issues to deal with than whether two gays or lesbians can call their union a marriage.

why don't you talk to George W Bush and Ronald Reagan they started it when they aligned with the Moral Majority Christian bible thumpers and made gays God Guns and racism always issues don't you get it they use these issues to divide the masses the sheeple

it comes down to what people believe is right and wrong. Both sides are entitled to their beliefs and to state their case.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Look up the word "marriage" in any dictionary. You will not find any definition that includes same sex couples.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Full Definition of MARRIAGE
1
a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>
Marriage Definition of marriage by Merriam-Webster

Oxford English Dictionary
Definition of marriage in English:
noun
legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship:
marriage definition of marriage in Oxford dictionary American English US


>>>>

JINX!

that definition would include sibling marriage, parent/child marriage, cousin marriage, and any other two person relationship.............. since, for now, it limits it to two people. The next revision will eliminate the two person limitation----------watch.

Yes... it does and it will, because it must. Effectively rendering Marriage to be without meaning. Rendering the exercise pointless.

 

[Redfish]

Look up the word "marriage" in any dictionary. You will not find any definition that includes same sex couples.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Full Definition of MARRIAGE
1
a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>
Marriage Definition of marriage by Merriam-Webster

Oxford English Dictionary
Definition of marriage in English:
noun
legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship:
marriage definition of marriage in Oxford dictionary American English US


>>>>

JINX!

that definition would include sibling marriage, parent/child marriage, cousin marriage, and any other two person relationship.............. since, for now, it limits it to two people. The next revision will eliminate the two person limitation----------watch.

Yes... it does and it will, because it must. Effectively rendering Marriage to be without meaning. Rendering the exercise pointless.

which is the real goal of the left wing gay agenda-----------destroy marriage, destroy religion and make everyone a slave to the state.

whats really sad is that the libs are too stupid to see what is happening.