Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Nothing in that text even hints at supporting any “right” to have a disgusting homosexual mockery of a marriage treated as equivalent to a genuine marriage.
You're making up shit that isn't there.
And I'll say it again—not one word that appears in this Amendment, nor anywhere else in the Constitution was written by anyone who would have even thought of supporting such a sick mockery. If any author of any text in the Constitution thought that his words might be twisted and corrupted to that end, then he surely would have written them more carefully, to prevent that.
Sure, it doesn't say anything about gay marriage itself but it dies talk about equal protection. You can't say it's OK for some but then say it's not for others
I always surprises me when conservatives demand bigger government so government can better inspection our bedrooms at night ... more regulations on how consenting adults have sex ... it's hypocritical ... how long has it been since you've read George Orwell's 1984? ...
Find me the Constitutional authority for the United States Air Force or Space Force. It isn't there because the writers of the Constitution could not even imagine that there would be a need for such a military force.
MY bad...Here is US lawYeah, had surgery on Thursday so this week I haven't been paying attention to usmb.
Your link is referencing the legislative and judicial system in England, not America, so, I don't know if that would, in any way, apply.
But, in your article, it does say that primary law would always Trump secondary law (common law). I would consider laws our legislative bodies make as primary law and court precedent as secondary law. Precedent is not always a good thing, as we have seen with roe, they set the precedent when roe was first decided, but it was the wrong precedent. The courts don't have the power to create law, so they sent it back to the States, where it belongs.
In the case of gay marriage, the courts could only make sure that thr states are adhering to the equal protection clause of the 14A, the courts cannot create any binding statute or legal directive, by its own power (law), that a state must follow.
Again, only the legislative branch cab make laws, the judicial branch makes sure those laws comply with the cotus.
Courts interpret lawLegislative intent is a construct that courts use to discern the meaning of legislative action, usually in the form of legislation. The concept is employed in many fields of law—including constitutional law—in the interpretation and application of statutes.
Legislative Intent | Encyclopedia.com
www.encyclopedia.com/politics/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/
You are contradicting yourself in the same post! You seem to be saying that it's appropriate to find rights that were never before thought of based on changing culture and other factors, then go on to say that we have to adhear to the document as intended. I just can't figure you outOf course it wasn't on their radar, but that's the beauty of the cotus, it didn't need to be. They wrote this document to be forward looking and future proof, because in it was supposed to be all the protections from, and limitations by, the federal gov to the people. The way they wrote it guaranteed freedoms that they might have not known about or seen at that time.
That's my whole point about the cotus, in order for it to work as intended, we have to adhere to the document, as intended. When you start giving power to the gov that it was never intended to have, you mess up the whole idea this country was founded on. Over the years, our government has become so bloated that its gotten far away from what it was supposed to be, and now it's doing things the cotus never said it could. Now we're at a point to where whoever is in power wields the gov to their own desires and the rest of us fight amongst each other.
This is all so useless. Just word games really. OK, they were forward looking and understood that issues would arise in the future that they could not think of then. And yes the the 14th is the basis for same sex mariage in that marriage flows from the 4th. So what have we accomplished now? You still have two problems 1. How does Obergefell differ from Roe 2. And you insistance that courts do not make law (except for Obergefell) while ignoring the reality of case law as constitutional laeOf course it wasn't on their radar, but that's the beauty of the cotus, it didn't need to be. They wrote this document to be forward looking and future proof, because in it was supposed to be all the protections from, and limitations by, the federal gov to the people. The way they wrote it guaranteed freedoms that they might have not known about or seen at that time.
That's my whole point about the cotus, in order for it to work as intended, we have to adhere to the document, as intended. When you start giving power to the gov that it was never intended to have, you mess up the whole idea this country was founded on. Over the years, our government has become so bloated that its gotten far away from what it was supposed to be, and now it's doing things the cotus never said it could. Now we're at a point to where whoever is in power wields the gov to their own desires and the rest of us fight amongst each other.
No, it's not. As I said, they didn't need for it to intend on regulating marriage, their intent was to give the fed gov certain powers, and the rest to the states and people. In that, they tried to allow max freedom for the people, which would include the 14A protection of gay marriage, hundreds of years into the future
PS You actually have 2 peoblemsNo, it's not. As I said, they didn't need for it to intend on regulating marriage, their intent was to give the fed gov certain powers, and the rest to the states and people. In that, they tried to allow max freedom for the people, which would include the 14A protection of gay marriage, hundreds of years into the future.
Conservatives want less government. It's the dems who want government to come in and make laws regarding marriage.I always surprises me when conservatives demand bigger government so government can better inspection our bedrooms at night ... more regulations on how consenting adults have sex ... it's hypocritical ... how long has it been since you've read George Orwell's 1984? ...
Religious marriage is governed by the church ... secular marriage is governed by written law, and not surprisingly, most of marriage law is similar to contract law ... that's right, marriage is only about money in the eyes of our government, or at least ... it better be ...
It is all pointless. You can't see that I'm arguing that gay people have a right to marry as they wish, your hangup is that I won't conceed that scotus has the right to legislate from the bench, and unilaterally create law.This is all so useless. Just word games really. OK, they were forward looking and understood that issues would arise in the future that they could not think of then. And yes the the 14th is the basis for same sex mariage in that marriage flows from the 4th. So what have we accomplished now? You still have two problems 1. How does Obergefell differ from Roe 2. And you insistance that courts do not make law (except for Obergefell) while ignoring the reality of case law as constitutional lae
No, I'm solid. The cotus is not fluid nor is it adaptable, the words themselves are self interpreting and written to be inclusive enough to cover future issues. Cotus was written to secure the rights of the people in their civil affairs. The right to equal protection under the law. That is as forward looking as it needs to be. No interpretation needed.PS You actually have 2 peoblems
1. How does Obergefell differ from Roe'
2. And you insistance that courts do not make law (except for Obergefell) while ignoring the reality of case law as constitutional law
AND
3. You can't seem to decide whether the constitution is fluid and adapable to unforseen issues and able to find bew, unenumerated rights, OR if we must strictly abide by the original written text and only recognise the enumerated rights
It seems that you have some soul serching to do
Where do you find marriage defined in the cotus?“Gay ‘marriage’” involves fundamentally redefining marriage, away from what it has always been understood to mean. That has nothing to do with equal protection, as affirmed in the Fourteenth Amendment. That's about redefining and corrupting on of the most fundamental social institutions, in a manner that denies the social and biological basis and purpose of that institution. There is no honest way to claim that the Fourteenth Amendment supports this.
Where do you find marriage defined in the cotus?
Holly shit! What??!! You just can't seem to stick to your story. You seem really confused. All along you have been railing against "court made law" more accuratly known as case law, but granted some dispensation to te Obergefell decision saying that it was an approriate decision and not an example of court made lawConservatives want less government. It's the dems who want government to come in and make laws regarding marriage.
Conservatives want that kind of stuff left to the states, not in the hands of a central federal gov.
I've maintained that the federal gov should not be making any laws regarding marriage, either for or against. That's not their perview, thus, smaller government.
So now we are back to all people being protected under the constitution?? The constitution is the bedrock of the federal judiciary so HOW THE FUCK would the constitution "protect all people if the federal government has nothing to say about marriage? Christ you are a mess!As far as the churches, yeah, of course they want marriage to be traditional, that's just their thing. As long as the government sees to it that all people are protected under the cotus, what the churches want won't make any difference.
It was conservatives who passed those state laws banning same sex marriage before Obergefell. What the fuck do you call that ? WE did not make laws, we overturned them.Conservatives want less government. It's the dems who want government to come in and make laws regarding marriage.
You are still doing the same shit over and over again. Bleating about how case law is not law, while ignoring that fact that it carries the force of law and is in fact Constitutional Law.It is all pointless. You can't see that I'm arguing that gay people have a right to marry as they wish, your hangup is that I won't conceed that scotus has the right to legislate from the bench, and unilaterally create law.
Case law is "precedent" and is not "law", i.e. it's not legislation. Scotus cannot make law, it can only assert that laws being proposed, or that currently exist comply with cotus standards. They can't interpret that law to mean something else, like roe. Scotus couldn't say abortion was the law of the land, since that's not their role in government. They could only say that the cotus gives people a right to privacy. Lefty activists were the ones that screwed that up when they took that decision and started spreading abortion as "settled law" and as a right, which scotus didn't say. Abortion was never a right, privacy is a right.
Obergefell differs from roe in that equal protection says that you can't give to one but deny another the same thing. Abortion is a states rights issue, gay marriage is a cotus issue.
You are as solid as fresh cow flop before it gets baked in the sun. You still have three problems and they are not going away. You cannot say that the Constitution is adaptable while espousing an fundamentallt textualist philosophy. You cant rail against legislating from the bench but then make exception that suite you ( even if you later go back on that which you have with gay marriage, You can't have it both ways. You are realy a sad fucking mess.No, I'm solid. The cotus is not fluid nor is it adaptable, the words themselves are self interpreting and written to be inclusive enough to cover future issues. Cotus was written to secure the rights of the people in their civil affairs. The right to equal protection under the law. That is as forward looking as it needs to be. No interpretation needed.
If you adhere to the written text, you'll find that it works much better than constantly trying to change the meaning on a whim. As it was written includes all the protection from the Federal government that we will need. If we stop giving the fed gov more and more power, we wouldn't need to worry about all these things. The fact that we are where we are should be a sign that when you allow the Fed gov to control EVERYTHING, eventually someone isn't going to like how that works.
If we adhere to its original principles, then we don't have that issue.
Remember, cotus is technically a limiting document on the Fed gov.
A major contradiction in ONE sentence!!The cotus is not fluid nor is it adaptable, the words themselves are self interpreting and written to be inclusive enough to cover future issues.
Lets jut throw out the constitution and go back to the Articles of Confederation. Lets have slave and free states againIf you adhere to the written text, you'll find that it works much better than constantly trying to change the meaning on a whim. As it was written includes all the protection from the Federal government that we will need. If we stop giving the fed gov more and more power, we wouldn't need to worry about all these things. The fact that we are where we are should be a sign that when you allow the Fed gov to control EVERYTHING, eventually someone isn't going to like how that works.
