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.
Of course you backtracked. You initially said that marriages should recognized across all states - that all states should be required to recognize the marriages performed in other states, and that the mechanism to do that should be a federal law. You then backtracked and amended that by saying "well, but not for 1st cousin marriages."
Which state has 1st cousins that are allowed to marry?
Civil unions, are not sanctioned under god, as a marriage is.
Is this how public assistance, got called welfare. Place a name on it, that it isn't.
Then cry to the public......
Been there done that.
At what point in life, did government become your god?
Don't believe in god, can I still get married in your world?
Don't believe in god, can I still get married in your world?
Nope. You can have a Civil Union contract called a marriage license, by our governments, read by a Justice of the Peace.
Don't tell me you plan to get married in a church, by a pastor?
Government took over the marriage business, because the church was controlling who was with who and they could not get past the separation of C&S issue.
Not until the 1900's, there was no such thing as a marriage license, which is a civil union contract. It became a privilege the king gave, for all those willing to give the king some of their gold.
Government doesn't grant rights. They only grant privileges.
In my reading, the 14th Amendment doesn't allow states to write a marriage law that says opposite-sex couples can have one, but same-sex couples can't.
Let's be honest with ourselves, if the writers and ratifiers intended for the 14th Amendment to address Homosexual marriage, they would have done so. It's not exactly some new issue that we have to 'guess' if the law written/passed was intended to cover it (which is what the supreme court is for, to address ambiguities when NEW situations arise against existing laws). Homosexual marriage as a possibility existed then, and they didn't extend it. Any Supreme Court ruling that the 14th Amendment covers gay marriage is legislating from the bench, pure and simple. What's needed here is a constitutional amendment but since support for this is a long ways away, I don't see anyone pushing this issue.
Let's be honest with ourselves, if the writers and ratifiers intended for the 14th Amendment to address Homosexual marriage, they would have done so. It's not exactly some new issue that we have to 'guess' if the law written/passed was intended to cover it (which is what the supreme court is for, to address ambiguities when NEW situations arise against existing laws). Homosexual marriage as a possibility existed then, and they didn't extend it. Any Supreme Court ruling that the 14th Amendment covers gay marriage is legislating from the bench, pure and simple. What's needed here is a constitutional amendment but since support for this is a long ways away, I don't see anyone pushing this issue.
At the turn of the last century, legislating from the bench is the way they have changed this nation into a socialistic controlled populace. Where people here are so restricted in what they can and cannot do.
When Constitutional law was replace with Precedence law.
At the turn of the last century, legislating from the bench is the way they have changed this nation into a socialistic controlled populace. Where people here are so restricted in what they can and cannot do.
When Constitutional law was replace with Precedence law.
Let's be honest with ourselves, if the writers and ratifiers intended for the 14th Amendment to address Homosexual marriage, they would have done so. It's not exactly some new issue that we have to 'guess' if the law written/passed was intended to cover it (which is what the supreme court is for, to address ambiguities when NEW situations arise against existing laws). Homosexual marriage as a possibility existed then, and they didn't extend it. Any Supreme Court ruling that the 14th Amendment covers gay marriage is legislating from the bench, pure and simple. What's needed here is a constitutional amendment but since support for this is a long ways away, I don't see anyone pushing this issue.
That's how common law works. By your argument, you have no right to privacy since it was granted by the 14th Amendment, and the founders never extended it to you. Privacy doesn't exist in the Constitution.
I take it you have no problem with the police raiding your house day or night and searching/taking anything they want without a warrant correct?
That's how common law works. By your argument, you have no right to privacy since it was granted by the 14th Amendment, and the founders never extended it to you. Privacy doesn't exist in the Constitution.
If it was granted by the 14th Amendment, then I have a right to privacy. What exactly is your argument?
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.
