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.
Why would I need a history book??? All I need to do is look at the legal code.
Civil marriage is a legal institution. Religion has NOTHING to do with it.
Marriage, by definition, is the union of a man and a woman (Holy Matrimony) as ordained by God, since the beginning of time. 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).
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.
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.
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).
Marriage, by definition, is the union of a man and a woman (Holy Matrimony) as ordained by God, since the beginning of time. 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).
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.
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.
I won't deal with your rather skewed version of history. It's beside the point anyway.
But this is flat-out wrong - "Therefore, a judge does not have the power to overturn what the state has been given the power to decide for itself."
It is a judge's *job* to overturn state laws if that law infringes on a citizen's rights as described out by the US constitution and precedents based on that constitution.
Whose God? Not mine. Why should YOUR God take precedence over MY God?
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.
Marriage, by definition, is the union of a man and a woman (Holy Matrimony) as ordained by God, since the beginning of time. 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).
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.
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.
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).
Civil Marriage has nothing to do with God. Which is why those of no religion can get married. It is why people of mixed religions can get married. I grew up in a heavily Italian community, that also had a large Jewish population. There were a bunch of mixed Catholic and Jewish marriages. Nothing to do with the Church.
A Judges job is to determine if the laws that are passed are Constitutional or not. Judge after Judge, appointed by both Democrats and Republicans have ruled that the bans are Unonsitutional. Just because Fox tells you it is, doesn't make it so.
I won't deal with your rather skewed version of history. It's beside the point anyway.
But this is flat-out wrong - "Therefore, a judge does not have the power to overturn what the state has been given the power to decide for itself."
It is a judge's *job* to overturn state laws if that law infringes on a citizen's rights as described out by the US constitution and precedents based on that constitution.
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.
The whole legal benefits argument is designed to provide standing for challenging and overturning the will of the people in court.
That accomplished, the homosexual thought police can then use documents issued by the state to support their claim that homosexuality is normal and natural because it is legally indistinguishable from heterosexuality.
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.
No one denied whites and blacks the right to marry those of the same race prior to Loving V Virginia either, yet they couldn't marry each other prior to the ruling in a bunch of states.
Do you realize how silly that post makes you look? I'm glad gay marriage upsets you, you deserve it.
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.
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.
no it isn't a phoney argument. one church approves of gay marriage another won't. god and his scriptures are open to interpretation. they mean different things to different people. very easy to make god's rules agree with your own thinking and that of your church. doesn't make it always right.
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.
