Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think you and your ilk are the ones looking silly.
I'm glad you are upset by the position of a majority of Americans, who within their states, when it has been on the ballot, have voted consistently, and overwhelmingly to ban so-called "gay marriage" (the counterfeit of the real thing).
It has only been because of judges, overstepping their authority, that "gay marriage" is allowed anywhere. Even California rejected it when it was placed on the ballot.
Since most of the bans have been passed, the support for same-sex marriage has increased. Judges ruling if a law is Constitutional or not is not overstepping their bounds. THAT IS THEIR JOB.
Marriage, by definition, is the union of a man and a woman (Holy Matrimony) as ordained by God, since the beginning of time.
First of all, this isn't true at all. Secondly, your personal religious understanding of marriage is irrelevant to those who don't share you religion and it's irrelevant to the law. The law is blind in that regard.
Quote:
It has been codified in law, and has never been anything other than the legal union of a man and a woman (until liberal judges have taken it upon themselves to change the definition).
And when something is codified in US law, it is necessarily not a religious institution. Civil marriage is defined entirely by marriage statutes pursuant, or course, to Constitutional scrutiny and oversight.
Quote:
Judges do not have the legal authority to change the definition of marriage, or any other word. Judges may only rule on the law as it exists and as it is written. They are acting outside the law when they change the definition of marriage.
We're not talking about changing definitions of words. Were's talking about laws. It doesn't matter one lick what the law is called. Whether the law is titled "marriage" or "civil union" or "domestic partnership" or "lakdjfaoic" or "kitchen bookshelf" is irrelevant. Judges look at what a law does and how it does it, and then determine whether government enforcement of the law violates someone's Constitutional rights.
Quote:
Neither do they have the authority to overrule what a state has banned, because this is the right of the state, per the Constitution, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" (Amendment X)
Therefore, it is the right of the states and the people of the several states, to decide the marriage issue, and not that of the Federal government, or any district judge. Therefore, a judge does not have the power to overturn what the state has been given the power to decide for itself.
You are dead wrong. The States specifically delegated this power to the Federal government:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
As citizens of the US, we all have the Constitutional right to be treated equally under State laws. If a State is using the power of law to discriminate, then the Federal judiciary has a 14th Amendment obligation to stop the unconstitutional discrimination.
Quote:
And, by the way, this is not just my opinion. This argument has been made by several of the best legal minds and Constitutional lawyers in the country. Sorry you haven't heard this (your fault for not watching Fox News, which is the only place you can hear some of these legal issues being debated by top Constitutional lawyers - you won't get this kind of coverage on the Soros networks).
First of all, I don't own a TV, so don't tell me where I get my information from. Secondly, I know the arguments - I've studied Constitutional law. It's the originalism argument - 'the people who wrote and ratified the 14th Amendment never intended it to give equal rights to homosexuals, therefore it can't be used to do so. The 14th Amendment was intended only to stop states from discriminating against black people.'
This argument also gets dressed up as a separation of powers argument - 'since the legislature (or the people via an initiative) decided it, only the legislature (or the people via an initiative) can undecide it. The problem with this is that it completely ignores the existence of the 14th Amendment. It's not a legal argument - it's a policy argument.
But no one is denying them the right to marry. They have the right to marry anyone of the opposite sex. They just don't have the right to marry someone of the same sex. That is not a civil right. It is a special right.
.
You mean like your right to marry someone is a special right. Why are you so special again?
This is such a phoney argument, and it is becoming tiresome. Your purpose is to engage in a "pissing contest," basically.
We all know that there is only one God. Do you worship idols? False gods (small 'g" gods)?
If you don't believe in God, say it. But that does not mean God does not exist. You might invent other gods in your mind, but again, you only fool yourself.
God has made himself known to all mankind, so (as scripture says) you are without excuse.
So, don't give me anymore of that "whose god" bull crap. I won't take the bate. Sorry.
How arrogant of you to tell me your God is real but mine is not. Replace God with Allah in your above post and no one would be able to tell you apart from the Taliban. You are just like them and what you advocate is simply the Christian version of Sharia Law.
Thank (MY) God that your ilk have already lost this battle. We don't want your Christian Sharia Law here.
No matter what courts say this like Abortion will likely never be settled as law for decades or socially perhaps never.
It will be settled law, but the American Taliban will continue to beat their chests about it for years to come. Maybe they can join up with the Westboro Baptist Church and start demonstrating and holding up signs at funerals about how God hates ****. I guarantee no one will be able to tell them apart.
It will be settled law, but the American Taliban will continue to beat their chests about it for years to come. Maybe they can join up with the Westboro Baptist Church and start demonstrating and holding up signs at funerals about how God hates ****. I guarantee no one will be able to tell them apart.
I guess you could call them the American Taliban. I just call them hate groups. Interracial marriage has been legal for a long time yet when Cheerios put out an ad with a biracial family in 2013, there was a huge racist backlash against a child. Cheerios Commercial Featuring Mixed Race Family Gets Racist Backlash (VIDEO) So, this person has a point. Like the disgusting negative reaction from some over bi-racial families there will continue to be disgusting negative reactions to gay families.
Hopefully one day we will become an enlightened society but until then, we have to deal or just ignore people that do not believe in love. I recommend ignoring. Anyway, glad Mississippi is yet another state where same gender couples can marry.
This is such a phoney argument, and it is becoming tiresome. Your purpose is to engage in a "pissing contest," basically.
We all know that there is only one God. Do you worship idols? False gods (small 'g" gods)?
If you don't believe in God, say it. But that does not mean God does not exist. You might invent other gods in your mind, but again, you only fool yourself.
God has made himself known to all mankind, so (as scripture says) you are without excuse.
So, don't give me anymore of that "whose god" bull crap. I won't take the bate. Sorry.
There is no god, it is a figment of mans imagination, a construct to explain away things that we were too ignorant to understand. One cannot prove the existance of these fictional beings, none of them can be proven. So Your God does not stand a chance against law.
My "skewed version of history?" LOL According to you.
For your information, the same sex marriage bans passed by states do not infringe on anybody's rights. This is not a "civil rights" issue, as the homosexuals are trying to make it (that's always what they do - re-frame the argument, change terms, etc.).
But no one is denying them the right to marry. They have the right to marry anyone of the opposite sex. They just don't have the right to marry someone of the same sex. That is not a civil right. It is a special right.
Your view is totally wrong, and not grounded in any law or the Constitution.
Stupid lame argument against same sex marraige that was used to deny interracial marriage. Why should/would a gay person want to marry someone of the opposite sex and why would a straight person want to marry a gay person? Come on now, are you really that crazy? Would you recommend your daughter or son marry a gay person just to hide that gay person? Really? If you have the right to marry the one you love, then the same right should be afforded to gay people, not a different right based on your ignorance and intolerance.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
