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.
The founder's were so dumb huh?Thank goodness it will be vetted experts making the decision instead of random posters on internet message boards.
Liberal logic: Nine anointed men and women in robes are allowed to pretend that something that never existed in the Constitution should be the law of the land as they go against the great unwashed.
The founder's were so dumb huh?Thank goodness it will be vetted experts making the decision instead of random posters on internet message boards.
Liberal logic: Nine anointed men and women in robes are allowed to pretend that something that never existed in the Constitution should be the law of the land as they go against the great unwashed.
Your SCOTUS will always render an opinion that furthers it's fictional jurisdiction in order to grant more power to the central body to which it is part . The fools beg for it to grant itself further fictional jurisdiction over their liberty, such will end in an eventual dictatorship or the like, thus is the same path traveled time and again throughout history.Basically every judge that has looked at the issue has said that the 14th Amendment does apply
Like in Wisconsin
It is well-established that “the Constitution protects persons, not groups,” Adarand
Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200, 227 (1995), so regardless of possible future events
affecting the larger community, my task under federal law is to decide the claims presented
by the plaintiffs in this case now, applying the provisions in the Fourteenth Amendment as
interpreted by the Supreme Court in cases such as Loving, Romer, Lawrence and Windsor.
Because my review of that law convinces me that plaintiffs are entitled to the same treatment
as any heterosexual couple, I conclude that the Wisconsin laws banning marriage between
same-sex couples are unconstitutional
The founder's were so dumb huh?[/QUOTEThank goodness it will be vetted experts making the decision instead of random posters on internet message boards.
Liberal logic: Nine anointed men and women in robes are allowed to pretend that something that never existed in the Constitution should be the law of the land as they go against the great unwashed.
No the founders' were not "dumb" however from among the founders' came the rats/ratifiers who were unhappy with the Articles of Confederation because the central body did not hold enough power under that wholly federal system, therefore, those who sought to extend centralized authority devised a new CONstitution to consolidate the States under a wholly national system of government in order to establish an authority over the individual citizen, and an indefinite supremacy over all persons, and things.
Such is the need for extended fictional jurisdiction which the fools beg to grant to the national government.
So true!!!!!Thank goodness it will be vetted experts making the decision instead of random posters on internet message boards.
Liberal logic: Nine anointed men and women in robes are allowed to pretend that something that never existed in the Constitution should be the law of the land as they go against the great unwashed.
Why demand equal rights?If they just want to profess their "love" to their mate, WHY DEMAND society has to take note of it and make a human rights issue on par with food, housing or healthcare? It isn't on par with heterosexual marriage on the basic grounds they in and of them selves out of their own sexuality without creating artificial logic cannot have kids and therefore don't need marriage. It isn't that hard.
Ummm ... not for nothing but ... straight marriage isn't specifically enumerated in the Constitution either.Thank goodness it will be vetted experts making the decision instead of random posters on internet message boards.
Liberal logic: Nine anointed men and women in robes are allowed to pretend that something that never existed in the Constitution should be the law of the land as they go against the great unwashed.
The answer to that question is simple....Mary, the person to whom I posted. She claimed homosexuals are being treated "equally" as heterosexuals.Who are you asking ?Still no answer ...No, plenty of straight heterosexual couples get married and then learn to hate each other, some even have children out of lust turned to hate. It happens, marriage is being perverted (no pun intended) all the time by straights and now gays think all you need is a turkey baster or adopt. No, not buying it. No. it is getting weird here. I am beginning to wonder about gay marriage if even straights don't take it seriously anymore.You do NOT have to love somebody to get married. Your argument is analogous to Mary saying you need to bear children to get marriedIf we are already treated equally, how is it you get to marry the person you love but gays do not?
How is your ability to be legally married by the state to the person you love equal to that of a gay person who is not legally allowed to marry the person they love?
You said they're equal -- I'm searching for equality here ... but you won't answer ... ?
Given such a claim, I seek her ability to rationally explain how they're equal when she can legally marry the person she loves but a gay person can't.
She refuses to answer. Whether she realizes it or not, her refusal to answer, answers for her. Her refusal to answer informs me she can't rationally explain how they're equal because they're not actually equal, despite her desolate claim to the contrary.
The Court has stated on numerous occasions that marriage is a basic right. As such, denying two people that right because of who they are will be ruled unConstitutional.There is no infringement, that is why they have the right to contract a civil union between themselves professing their lifelong commitment to one another, however a marriage is a specific contract between a man and a woman. The same commitment , and rights may be achieved without refi fining a marriage contract.
marriage is a specified contract being between a man and a woman
Thank goodness it will be vetted experts making the decision instead of random posters on internet message boards.
Liberal logic: Nine anointed men and women in robes are allowed to pretend that something that never existed in the Constitution should be the law of the land as they go against the great unwashed.
good.I just posted this on another board, I won't buy ideological bullshit from ANYONE.
So true!!!!!Thank goodness it will be vetted experts making the decision instead of random posters on internet message boards.
Liberal logic: Nine anointed men and women in robes are allowed to pretend that something that never existed in the Constitution should be the law of the land as they go against the great unwashed.
They are political appointees, appointed to extend further fictional jurisdiction by whatever means to the national government over the State governments.
How can you argue that the Constitution establishes more authority over the individual citizen; while pointing out how people are petitioning the courts, which you claim empower the government and your proclaimed imposed limitations on peoples' individual rights -- when the people are seeking legal redress to their claim that the government is infringing on their individual liberties? You don't get to eat your cake and have it too.No the founders' were not "dumb" however from among the founders' came the rats/ratifiers who were unhappy with the Articles of Confederation because the central body did not hold enough power under that wholly federal system, therefore, those who sought to extend centralized authority devised a new CONstitution to consolidate the States under a wholly national system of government in order to establish an authority over the individual citizen, and an indefinite supremacy over all persons, and things.The founder's were so dumb huh?Thank goodness it will be vetted experts making the decision instead of random posters on internet message boards.
Liberal logic: Nine anointed men and women in robes are allowed to pretend that something that never existed in the Constitution should be the law of the land as they go against the great unwashed.
Such is the need for extended fictional jurisdiction which the fools beg to grant to the national government.
Yes, indeed marriage is a basic right, and marriage is a contract between a man and a woman. The right to contract itself is a basic right under your CONstitution, and same sex couples can contract a civil union between themselves without fighting to redefine marriage and extend fictional jurisdiction to the central government.The Court has stated on numerous occasions that marriage is a basic right. As such, denying two people that right because of who they are will be ruled unConstitutional.There is no infringement, that is why they have the right to contract a civil union between themselves professing their lifelong commitment to one another, however a marriage is a specific contract between a man and a woman. The same commitment , and rights may be achieved without refi fining a marriage contract.
People like you can reframe and misrepresent all you want. In the end you will wake up to the fact you have been wrong all along
What makes heterosexual marriage a right?The answer to that question is simple....Mary, the person to whom I posted. She claimed homosexuals are being treated "equally" as heterosexuals.Who are you asking ?Still no answer ...No, plenty of straight heterosexual couples get married and then learn to hate each other, some even have children out of lust turned to hate. It happens, marriage is being perverted (no pun intended) all the time by straights and now gays think all you need is a turkey baster or adopt. No, not buying it. No. it is getting weird here. I am beginning to wonder about gay marriage if even straights don't take it seriously anymore.You do NOT have to love somebody to get married. Your argument is analogous to Mary saying you need to bear children to get married
How is your ability to be legally married by the state to the person you love equal to that of a gay person who is not legally allowed to marry the person they love?
You said they're equal -- I'm searching for equality here ... but you won't answer ... ?
Given such a claim, I seek her ability to rationally explain how they're equal when she can legally marry the person she loves but a gay person can't.
She refuses to answer. Whether she realizes it or not, her refusal to answer, answers for her. Her refusal to answer informs me she can't rationally explain how they're equal because they're not actually equal, despite her desolate claim to the contrary.
Marriage is a specific contract between a man and a woman. If no man may marry another man, then there is no violation of rights because marriage is a specified contract being between a man and a woman. Same sex couples should be allowed to exercise their legal right to contract a civil union that would be equivalent to a marriage contract, which is a contract between a man and a woman, only theirs would be a contract between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, which simply is not a marriage contract by definition, yet can be every bit as binding and recognizable.
Are you prepared to answer yet? Why do you think marriage is a fundamental right?The Court has stated on numerous occasions that marriage is a basic right. As such, denying two people that right because of who they are will be ruled unConstitutional.There is no infringement, that is why they have the right to contract a civil union between themselves professing their lifelong commitment to one another, however a marriage is a specific contract between a man and a woman. The same commitment , and rights may be achieved without refi fining a marriage contract.
People like you can reframe and misrepresent all you want. In the end you will wake up to the fact you have been wrong all along
Yes, indeed marriage is a basic right, and marriage is a contract between a man and a woman. The right to contract itself is a basic right under your CONstitution, and same sex couples can contract a civil union between themselves without fighting to redefine marriage and extend fictional jurisdiction to the central government.The Court has stated on numerous occasions that marriage is a basic right. As such, denying two people that right because of who they are will be ruled unConstitutional.There is no infringement, that is why they have the right to contract a civil union between themselves professing their lifelong commitment to one another, however a marriage is a specific contract between a man and a woman. The same commitment , and rights may be achieved without refi fining a marriage contract.
People like you can reframe and misrepresent all you want. In the end you will wake up to the fact you have been wrong all along
You simply don't understand the real issue. You are begging the central body of government to extend a fictional jurisdiction over your individual rights by incorrectly arguing an issue in which you beg it to interject itself where it has no jurisdiction. Think logically, not emotionally.
