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 was being a bit Socratic. The Constitution does not work the way you were describing. States and their populations cannot impose their majority religious (or non-religious traditional) views when it comes to civil laws (including civil marriage laws). I'll quote the pertinent part:
"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 ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
States cannot craft civil laws with their associated civil rights and then determine who gets them and who doesn't willy-nilly.
Let me present my angle on this. Perhaps it needs more clarification. You cite the 14th Ammendment. Now, it may be a mute point but I also have read that it was not presented and approved according to the procedures set in the Constitution. Technically speaking, from what I have read before it was not legal the way it was passed. What now? Well, as I said, it is a mute point because it is an accepted deal regardless of how it was passed.
Now, I am very much of the originalist view. The tenth ammendment does say that anything not enumerated for the Federal Government belongs to the states. We can get into an endelss debate regarding the ammendment you quote though. The ammendment does not clarify what privileges and ammunities it is talking about. In the original laws set for Congress to enforce as far as I know apply to those related to the enumerated obligations of the Federal Government. Now, I am fully aware that what I believe is not enforced anymore as it was originaly set. My voice is a voice in the desert. I simply state what I believe. I do believe my views do have some support. How so? By the mere fact that the states have the power to decide whether gays can marry or not. If your point was fully correct, the 14 Ammendment would be enough to enforce gay marriage, it is not. They have not been stopped by the Federal Government if the ammendment applied as you said. Do not take me wrong. I support gay marriage but I am just stating what I think is the Spirit of the Constitution, the states can handle issue not enumerated for the Federal Government. Take care.
The ammendment does not clarify what privileges and ammunities it is talking about.
One need not be Lawrence Tribe to understand;
14th Amendment
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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.
What are the primary privileges and immunities of CITIZENS of the United States? What are the first ten amendments of this section of the Constitution, which we refer to as the Bill of Rights?
What the secondary privileges and immunities conferred upon a CITIZEN by any federal statute or subsequent Amendment that is "necessary and proper" shall "be the supreme Law of the Land."
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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.
What are the primary privileges and immunities of CITIZENS of the United States? What are the first ten amendments of this section of the Constitution, which we refer to as the Bill of Rights?
What the secondary privileges and immunities conferred upon a CITIZEN by any federal statute or subsequent Amendment that is "necessary and proper" shall "be the supreme Law of the Land."
Equal protection = equal taxes (the government has no problems enforcing that on gay citizens).
Society's well being depends on the basic unit of society: family, which is based on marriage between a man and a woman.
Legal marriage is primarily for the benefit of society, especially the future of society: CHILDREN.
If this is case, then you should focus your energies on outlawing divorce than gay marriage, since divorce has wrecked more havoc on society than Elton John and David Furnish.
Recent studies suggest that the female siblings of gay males over compensate by having even higher then average numbers of children.
If the goal is perpetuate the species, then that seems like a pretty good value right there.
Good post- info update.
So now we know as a fact, that society naturally tries to make amends in reparation, to make payment for the offsetting irregularity.
The children then remark to existence that they fully reject the intention within the lifestyle to extinguish humanity. A full denial of the parents philosophical-behavior value. Some of these complaints are interesting. I don't run away from arguments, like some and will read them now
Yes, because teaching kids to marry the one you love, regardless of gender, is completely without value!
Because gays getting married makes everyone teh gayz!
I dunno about you, but the prostate being just a penis length away is pretty crafty construction.
You seem to be going a little off topic, however the entry has great value in understanding our society.
Maybe you could start another thread....reason being is that if a human being in general can in fact learn to read and write, and hold these views toward children, I am very comfortable recommending that all teaching staff in all education systems be thoroughly explored in this area, and if idea's as this surface, absolute rejection in offer to take on responsibility up to 17 yrs of age.
So now we know as a fact, that society naturally tries to make amends in reparation, to make payment for the offsetting irregularity.
The children then remark to existence that they fully reject the intention within the lifestyle to extinguish humanity. A full denial of the parents philosophical-behavior value. Some of these complaints are interesting. I don't run away from arguments, like some and will read them now
Not everyone is meant to have children.
My sister and I have children, but its likely my sister never will have any because she doesn't want them, and ours have ruined her.
So we are from a fully hetrosexual family, I guess it works in reverse.
Gay siblings make you want to have kids, straight siblings make you not want to have kids.
Seriously, the world is just fine. We are over populated, if anything. More homosexuals coming out of the closet isn't some new fad, its because they are actually starting to feel accepted for who they are, not what anyone thinks of them.
Homosexuals make up what, 1% of the population? Maybe 5?
Population isn't something we need to worry about.
My sister and I have children, but its likely my sister never will have any because she doesn't want them, and ours have ruined her.
So we are from a fully hetrosexual family, I guess it works in reverse.
Gay siblings make you want to have kids, straight siblings make you not want to have kids.
Seriously, the world is just fine. We are over populated, if anything. More homosexuals coming out of the closet isn't some new fad, its because they are actually starting to feel accepted for who they are, not what anyone thinks of them.
Homosexuals make up what, 1% of the population? Maybe 5?
Population isn't something we need to worry about.
The Social Security system is nothing like that. In the Social Security system, the money you pay into the system gets immediately paid back out to the people who are currently getting Social Security checks. This arrangement came into being because of the way the system started. In 1935, when Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act into law, there were a lot of people who needed benefits (because of the Great Depression), but there was no money to pay those benefits with. The idea at the time was that people currently working would pay into the system, and their money would immediately go back out in the form of benefit checks. Each generation of retiring workers would get paid by the people currently working, and therefore the system would fund itself forever despite the fact that the system had no money to start with.
This clever idea worked great in 1935 (and for many years after that), but it is going to have a problem in the future for two reasons:
In 1935, there were many more people paying into the system than those receiving benefits. The ratio of workers to retirees meant that workers did not have to pay much into the system in 1935 to support the retirees (this table shows that up through 1950, only 2% of income (1% employee, 1% employer) was withheld for Social Security, compared to 15.30% (7.65% employee, 7.65% employer) today). In the future, the retirement of millions of baby boomers will hurt the ratio -- there will be so many retired people that the working people will not be able to support them. If the population had grown steadily this would not have been a problem, but there is no good way for the design of the Social Security System to handle a population spike like the baby boomers. HowStuffWorks "How does the Social Security system work?"
So the many couples that plan to never have children should not be allowed to marry either, how about those that can't?
You and that anal fixation, makes one think you have issues you have not dealt with.
The physical incapability or wish to not have children due to health, finance's, emotional issues which is health, has nothing to do with a homosexual period.
What a ridiculous comparison, a union of great intimacy including the sexual function express's a completion in life experience, which includes gender contrast, a contrast which allows experience to properly represent the reality of existence itself.. The two, become one for it. The two males or two females cannot become anything as they try to become one, without adding contrast which is within nature, and explains gender or man born incomplete within himself. A failed endeavor to express self and nature but not without, intentional rejection of the natural on every level for it. The wasteful rot-full manor of operations fully in keeping with the resentment for progress, and full rejection of all reality in existence, in motion.
Oh BTW a simple analogy....If one is arguing for the rights of an unborn baby, it does not mean the individual is subject in any way to having an abortion, or against drunk driving, it does not mean the individual is subject for the sake of the argument, to cracking open a bottle and going for a cruise. Very rude, no doubt about it.
The physical incapability or wish to not have children due to health, finance's, emotional issues which is health, has nothing to do with a homosexual period.
What a ridiculous comparison, a union of great intimacy including the sexual function express's a completion in life experience, which includes gender contrast, a contrast which allows experience to properly represent the reality of existence itself.. The two, become one for it. The two males or two females cannot become anything as they try to become one, without adding contrast which is within nature, and explains gender or man born incomplete within himself. A failed endeavor to express self and nature but not without, intentional rejection of the natural on every level for it. The wasteful rot-full manor of operations fully in keeping with the resentment for progress, and full rejection of all reality in existence, in motion.
Oh BTW a simple analogy....If one is arguing for the rights of an unborn baby, it does not mean the individual is subject in any way to having an abortion, or against drunk driving, it does not mean the individual is subject for the sake of the argument, to cracking open a bottle and going for a cruise. Very rude, no doubt about it.
If not having children has nothing to do with a homosexual couple WHY did you say same sex marriage is death to humanity?
Direct quote from your post above "The example of a homosexual marriage is the example of elimination of the human race. No doubt about it."
You do understand there are many same sex couples that do indeed have children in which one of the couple is its biological parent?
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.
