Tennessee Reminds SCOTUS: Separation of Powers: Passes Resolution Calling Out Gay Marriage Decision

[WildBillKelsoe]

Correct. Its like saying that there is a "right" to health care in the constitution.

Mark

Incorrect. As the constitution is not an exhaustive list of rights. Nor is enumeration necessary for a right to be retained by the people. Says who?

Why the 9th amendment, of course:

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

You're not quite clear on what the constitution is. As you keep treating it as an exhaustive list of rights.

It isn't. Nor ever has been.

Then what other rights do we have that are not in the document? According to the left, I should have a RIGHT to food and housing.

The right to privacy, the right to attorney if arrested, the right to marry, the right to self defense with a firearm and many others.

Conservatives as a rule have nothing but disdain for the 9th amendment, much preferring the 10th. As the 9th protects individual liberty. And unless you can shoot it, conservatives generally much prefer the power of the 10th to strip rights away from people.

Thankfully, there's the Supreme Court to prevent that.

In the case of marriage, the 9th Amendment doesn't apply.

Says who? Let me guess.....you again?

Says the Constitution, since the right marry doesn't exist in the Constitution. A right doesn't require permission from the government.

 

[Skylar]

It can be found here in the Constitution:

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Id. at 388 U. S. 12, quoting Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U. S. 535, 316 U. S. 541 (1942).

Zablocki v. Redhail 434 U.S. 374 (1978)

Remember that the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme court, authorized by the doctrine of judicial review and Articles III and VI of the Constitution.

“But that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

Which amendment is that? I've never seen, "marriage", anywhere in the Constitution.

“But that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

No, it isn't. If wasnt a valid argument, it would give the government license to make up whatever shit they want. Why does it seem so hard for you people to understand that?

So, of course, "it isn't in The Constitution", is a valid argument.

It's no 'argument' at all – the courts rule consistently with settled, accepted case law; the courts are not at liberty to 'make up whatever they want.'

The Supreme Court doesn't use case law to make decisions.

Are you not familiar with the concept of stare decisis? Seriously?

Why is it that these conservatives are always so horribly ignorant of even the basics of our legal system?

 

[Skylar]

Incorrect. As the constitution is not an exhaustive list of rights. Nor is enumeration necessary for a right to be retained by the people. Says who?

Why the 9th amendment, of course:

You're not quite clear on what the constitution is. As you keep treating it as an exhaustive list of rights.

It isn't. Nor ever has been.

Then what other rights do we have that are not in the document? According to the left, I should have a RIGHT to food and housing.

The right to privacy, the right to attorney if arrested, the right to marry, the right to self defense with a firearm and many others.

Conservatives as a rule have nothing but disdain for the 9th amendment, much preferring the 10th. As the 9th protects individual liberty. And unless you can shoot it, conservatives generally much prefer the power of the 10th to strip rights away from people.

Thankfully, there's the Supreme Court to prevent that.

In the case of marriage, the 9th Amendment doesn't apply.

Says who? Let me guess.....you again?

Says the Constitution, since the right marry doesn't exist in the Constitution. A right doesn't require permission from the government.

Can you quote the constitution indicating that the 9th amendment doesn't apply to marriage?

Just highlight it for us.

Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text

 

[80zephyr]

Then what other rights do we have that are not in the document? According to the left, I should have a RIGHT to food and housing.

The right to privacy, the right to attorney if arrested, the right to marry, the right to self defense with a firearm and many others.

Conservatives as a rule have nothing but disdain for the 9th amendment, much preferring the 10th. As the 9th protects individual liberty. And unless you can shoot it, conservatives generally much prefer the power of the 10th to strip rights away from people.

Thankfully, there's the Supreme Court to prevent that.

In the case of marriage, the 9th Amendment doesn't apply.

Says who? Let me guess.....you again?

Says the Constitution, since the right marry doesn't exist in the Constitution. A right doesn't require permission from the government.

Can you quote the constitution indicating that the 9th amendment doesn't apply to marriage?

Just highlight it for us.

Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text

Wouldn't it just be easier for you to show us where they say that marriage is a right?

Mark

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

Then what other rights do we have that are not in the document? According to the left, I should have a RIGHT to food and housing.

The right to privacy, the right to attorney if arrested, the right to marry, the right to self defense with a firearm and many others.

Conservatives as a rule have nothing but disdain for the 9th amendment, much preferring the 10th. As the 9th protects individual liberty. And unless you can shoot it, conservatives generally much prefer the power of the 10th to strip rights away from people.

Thankfully, there's the Supreme Court to prevent that.

In the case of marriage, the 9th Amendment doesn't apply.

Says who? Let me guess.....you again?

Says the Constitution, since the right marry doesn't exist in the Constitution. A right doesn't require permission from the government.

Can you quote the constitution indicating that the 9th amendment doesn't apply to marriage?

Just highlight it for us.

Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text

No, I can't...BECAUSE THE RIGHT TO MARRY DOESNT EXIST IN THE CONSTITUTION.

 

[Skylar]

The right to privacy, the right to attorney if arrested, the right to marry, the right to self defense with a firearm and many others.

Conservatives as a rule have nothing but disdain for the 9th amendment, much preferring the 10th. As the 9th protects individual liberty. And unless you can shoot it, conservatives generally much prefer the power of the 10th to strip rights away from people.

Thankfully, there's the Supreme Court to prevent that.

In the case of marriage, the 9th Amendment doesn't apply.

Says who? Let me guess.....you again?

Says the Constitution, since the right marry doesn't exist in the Constitution. A right doesn't require permission from the government.

Can you quote the constitution indicating that the 9th amendment doesn't apply to marriage?

Just highlight it for us.

Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text

Wouldn't it just be easier for you to show us where they say that marriage is a right?

Mark

Who says that the constitution has to enumerate a right for it to be retained by the people?

Spoiler Alert: That wouldn't be me.

See the 9th amendment for why.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

Which amendment is that? I've never seen, "marriage", anywhere in the Constitution.

“But that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

No, it isn't. If wasnt a valid argument, it would give the government license to make up whatever shit they want. Why does it seem so hard for you people to understand that?

So, of course, "it isn't in The Constitution", is a valid argument.

It's no 'argument' at all – the courts rule consistently with settled, accepted case law; the courts are not at liberty to 'make up whatever they want.'

The Supreme Court doesn't use case law to make decisions.

Are you not familiar with the concept of stare decisis? Seriously?

Why is it that these conservatives are always so horribly ignorant of even the basics of our legal system?

How many of our civil rights require a license?

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

In the case of marriage, the 9th Amendment doesn't apply.

Says who? Let me guess.....you again?

Says the Constitution, since the right marry doesn't exist in the Constitution. A right doesn't require permission from the government.

Can you quote the constitution indicating that the 9th amendment doesn't apply to marriage?

Just highlight it for us.

Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text

Wouldn't it just be easier for you to show us where they say that marriage is a right?

Mark

Who says that the constitution has to enumerate a right for it to be retained by the people?

Spoiler Alert: That wouldn't be me.

See the 9th amendment for why.

Is driving a right?

 

[Skylar]

The right to privacy, the right to attorney if arrested, the right to marry, the right to self defense with a firearm and many others.

Conservatives as a rule have nothing but disdain for the 9th amendment, much preferring the 10th. As the 9th protects individual liberty. And unless you can shoot it, conservatives generally much prefer the power of the 10th to strip rights away from people.

Thankfully, there's the Supreme Court to prevent that.

In the case of marriage, the 9th Amendment doesn't apply.

Says who? Let me guess.....you again?

Says the Constitution, since the right marry doesn't exist in the Constitution. A right doesn't require permission from the government.

Can you quote the constitution indicating that the 9th amendment doesn't apply to marriage?

Just highlight it for us.

Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text

No, I can't...BECAUSE THE RIGHT TO MARRY DOESNT EXIST IN THE CONSTITUTION.

Nor does a right need to be enumerated in the constitution to be retained by the people.

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

So where does the Constitution say that 9th amendment doesn't apply to marriage?

You are aware that the Constitution is NOT an exhaustive list of rights......right? I mean, this is so fundamental, so basic that I'm almost afraid to ask.

 

[Skylar]

“But that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

No, it isn't. If wasnt a valid argument, it would give the government license to make up whatever shit they want. Why does it seem so hard for you people to understand that?

So, of course, "it isn't in The Constitution", is a valid argument.

It's no 'argument' at all – the courts rule consistently with settled, accepted case law; the courts are not at liberty to 'make up whatever they want.'

The Supreme Court doesn't use case law to make decisions.

Are you not familiar with the concept of stare decisis? Seriously?

Why is it that these conservatives are always so horribly ignorant of even the basics of our legal system?

How many of our civil rights require a license?

That's not an answer to my question:

Are you not familiar with the concept of stare decisis?

If you've never heard of it, just say so. I'll be happy to let you in the 'secret'.

 

[AmericanFirst1]

And yet marriage equality will continue to be the reality in Tennessee as well as the other 49 states and there is nothing you bigots can do about it.

Hating the SIN of homosexuality isn't being a bigot.

If you believe something is a sin, don't do it. Apply your personal morals to your own life. The sexual practices of two consenting adults, in the privacy of their own bedroom, is none of your business nor the state's business. When people are motivated by animosity and seek to impose their morals on everyone else in society through the operation of our laws, that is bigotry. Lawrence v. Texas made it clear: Moral disapproval alone is not enough to justify state intrusion into private matters. There must exist a legitimate public interest and purpose to justify state regulation. That is the core of due process.

Wasn't my business until the retarded mental ward deviants decided to come out of the closet and shove their sick perversions down my throat. Isn't private when the perverts made it public.

 

[Skylar]

Says who? Let me guess.....you again?

Says the Constitution, since the right marry doesn't exist in the Constitution. A right doesn't require permission from the government.

Can you quote the constitution indicating that the 9th amendment doesn't apply to marriage?

Just highlight it for us.

Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text

Wouldn't it just be easier for you to show us where they say that marriage is a right?

Mark

Who says that the constitution has to enumerate a right for it to be retained by the people?

Spoiler Alert: That wouldn't be me.

See the 9th amendment for why.

Is driving a right?

Has it been recognized as one by the courts,. the constitution or any state?

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

No, it isn't. If wasnt a valid argument, it would give the government license to make up whatever shit they want. Why does it seem so hard for you people to understand that?

So, of course, "it isn't in The Constitution", is a valid argument.

It's no 'argument' at all – the courts rule consistently with settled, accepted case law; the courts are not at liberty to 'make up whatever they want.'

The Supreme Court doesn't use case law to make decisions.

Are you not familiar with the concept of stare decisis? Seriously?

Why is it that these conservatives are always so horribly ignorant of even the basics of our legal system?

How many of our civil rights require a license?

That's not an answer to my question:

Are you not familiar with the concept of stare decisis?

If you've never heard of it, just say so. I'll be happy to let you in the 'secret'.

Is driving a right?

 

[Skylar]

And yet marriage equality will continue to be the reality in Tennessee as well as the other 49 states and there is nothing you bigots can do about it.

Hating the SIN of homosexuality isn't being a bigot.

If you believe something is a sin, don't do it. Apply your personal morals to your own life. The sexual practices of two consenting adults, in the privacy of their own bedroom, is none of your business nor the state's business. When people are motivated by animosity and seek to impose their morals on everyone else in society through the operation of our laws, that is bigotry. Lawrence v. Texas made it clear: Moral disapproval alone is not enough to justify state intrusion into private matters. There must exist a legitimate public interest and purpose to justify state regulation. That is the core of due process.

Wasn't my business until the retarded mental ward deviants decided to come out of the closet and shove their sick perversions down my throat. Isn't private when the perverts made it public.

So how does a gay couple getting married effect you? What is taken from you?

I'll give you a hint. The word you're looking for starts with an N. And ends with 'othing'.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

Says the Constitution, since the right marry doesn't exist in the Constitution. A right doesn't require permission from the government.

Can you quote the constitution indicating that the 9th amendment doesn't apply to marriage?

Just highlight it for us.

Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text

Wouldn't it just be easier for you to show us where they say that marriage is a right?

Mark

Who says that the constitution has to enumerate a right for it to be retained by the people?

Spoiler Alert: That wouldn't be me.

See the 9th amendment for why.

Is driving a right?

Has it been recognized as one by the courts,. the constitution or any state?

Neither has marriage...LMAO

 

[Skylar]

It's no 'argument' at all – the courts rule consistently with settled, accepted case law; the courts are not at liberty to 'make up whatever they want.'

The Supreme Court doesn't use case law to make decisions.

Are you not familiar with the concept of stare decisis? Seriously?

Why is it that these conservatives are always so horribly ignorant of even the basics of our legal system?

How many of our civil rights require a license?

That's not an answer to my question:

Are you not familiar with the concept of stare decisis?

If you've never heard of it, just say so. I'll be happy to let you in the 'secret'.

Is driving a right?

Are you not familiar with the concept of stare decisis?

You can try and run from the question as much as you'd like. But your claim that the Supreme Court doesn't use caselaw is still destroyed by the very concept of precedent.

 

[Skylar]

Can you quote the constitution indicating that the 9th amendment doesn't apply to marriage?

Just highlight it for us.

Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text

Wouldn't it just be easier for you to show us where they say that marriage is a right?

Mark

Who says that the constitution has to enumerate a right for it to be retained by the people?

Spoiler Alert: That wouldn't be me.

See the 9th amendment for why.

Is driving a right?

Has it been recognized as one by the courts,. the constitution or any state?

Neither has marriage...LMAO

Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court and the Obergefell ruling all say differently.

Shall I quote them to you?

Applying these tenets, the Court has long held the right to marry is protected by the Constitution. For example, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12, invalidated bans on interracial unions, and Turner v. Safley , 482 U. S. 78, 95, held that prisoners could not be denied the
right to marry.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

Its okay, Bill. We don't expect you to know what the fuck you're talking about.

 

[bucs90]

Ok but what if polygamy is their religion? Then it's discriminating. Right?

Correct.

But polygamy isn't marriage, it's just living together, having nothing to do with same-sex couples seeking to marry, as the states can't criminalize people 'living in sin.'

Bigamy is another matter altogether – three or more people seeking to marry.

Laws prohibiting bigamy are Constitutional because bigamy is committing fraud upon the state, something the states are at liberty to regulate, and as such religion cannot be used to 'justify' violating valid laws or challenging their constitutionality in court.

Polygamy/Bigamy...same concept...and yeah I am referring to the marriage part.

How would it be fraud against the state? If a man loves two women and they all 3 want to be married...and it's part of their religion...can a state legally deny that?

Yes.

Because there is no law in place in any of the states authorizing persons to enter into a marriage contract written to accommodate two people only, pursuant to state contract law.

Same-sex couples are eligible to enter in to a given state's marriage law – law unchanged, unaltered, and not 'redefined.'

One's rights cannot be 'violated' by being denied access to a law that doesn't exist, regardless his religious beliefs.

Last, bigamy is fraud because it violates the contract one enters into with the state, where in the context of that marriage law you're married to only one person; the fraud occurs when one lies and seeks to deceive the state when attempting to 'marry' a third person while already married to another.

Yes because the state defines it as 2 people. Being devils advocate...is that discriminatory against those whose religion believes a man can have many wives??

Bigamy is prohibited by law. You have to ask the question: Is the law reasonably related to a legitimate government interest?

Good question. Is it? For example...if 1 man has enough money to care for 7 wives but only has 1....while 6 others are struggling to get by and need welfare...if he takes on 7 wives and removes them from welfare that's in the government's interest isn't it?

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

Wouldn't it just be easier for you to show us where they say that marriage is a right?

Mark

Who says that the constitution has to enumerate a right for it to be retained by the people?

Spoiler Alert: That wouldn't be me.

See the 9th amendment for why.

Is driving a right?

Has it been recognized as one by the courts,. the constitution or any state?

Neither has marriage...LMAO

Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court and the Obergefell ruling all say differently.

Shall I quote them to you?

The Supreme Court can't amend The Constitution.

This fun...lol

 

[Skylar]

Correct.

But polygamy isn't marriage, it's just living together, having nothing to do with same-sex couples seeking to marry, as the states can't criminalize people 'living in sin.'

Bigamy is another matter altogether – three or more people seeking to marry.

Laws prohibiting bigamy are Constitutional because bigamy is committing fraud upon the state, something the states are at liberty to regulate, and as such religion cannot be used to 'justify' violating valid laws or challenging their constitutionality in court.

Polygamy/Bigamy...same concept...and yeah I am referring to the marriage part.

How would it be fraud against the state? If a man loves two women and they all 3 want to be married...and it's part of their religion...can a state legally deny that?

Yes.

Because there is no law in place in any of the states authorizing persons to enter into a marriage contract written to accommodate two people only, pursuant to state contract law.

Same-sex couples are eligible to enter in to a given state's marriage law – law unchanged, unaltered, and not 'redefined.'

One's rights cannot be 'violated' by being denied access to a law that doesn't exist, regardless his religious beliefs.

Last, bigamy is fraud because it violates the contract one enters into with the state, where in the context of that marriage law you're married to only one person; the fraud occurs when one lies and seeks to deceive the state when attempting to 'marry' a third person while already married to another.

Yes because the state defines it as 2 people. Being devils advocate...is that discriminatory against those whose religion believes a man can have many wives??

Bigamy is prohibited by law. You have to ask the question: Is the law reasonably related to a legitimate government interest?

Good question. Is it? For example...if 1 man has enough money to care for 7 wives but only has 1....while 6 others are struggling to get by and need welfare...if he takes on 7 wives and removes them from welfare that's in the government's interest isn't it?

When has a person's right to marry been conditioned on welfare?

Can you cite a single example?