Gay marriage is not a constitutional right

[miketx]

Not true, as many people that are married or become married do not have kids, can't have kids or will never have kids...

Qeers.

 

[dblack]

Why can't we have marriage laws written that well, where both sides agree to how it's written
and can still get out of it the interpretation that matches their beliefs.

Because, for most people, the point of government is to force their values on others.

Better known as... enforcing the law.

Wow... you really own it, I'll give you that. Were you as excited about enforcing the law when gay marriage was illegal?

 

[Tennyson]

Pretty much everyone agrees with me except twentieth century activist courts. This isn't about the courts. If you want to cite a court case as an argument with me, you need to defend it in its constitutional basis. A monkey with a keyboard and an Internet connection can find a court case. If your only argument is that a court ruled, you do not have an argument unless the topic is limited to court rulings only.

So you want to ignore a dozen separate court cases, rendered by those entrusted with our highest court in the land, in lieu of your opinion?

As I stated, if you want to use a late twentieth century court ruling that contradict the debates of the 39th Congress and all first and second generation court rulings after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, then defend the rulings on their constitutional basis. Just saying a court ruled is not an argument.

It's not just "a court." It's more than a dozen.

Fantastic. Can you defend the constitutional basis of the first one and any that followed that did not cite the first one? You have to factor in the cancer of a written constitution for all subsequent rulings after the first activist ruling: stare decisis.

Stare decisis reaffirms previous rulings. That reinforces those earlier decisions. And referencing such rulings as "activist" does more to expose your bias than it does reflect on the rulings themselves.

Stare decisis is anti-constitutional. It is a cancer and supports bad rulings. The best thing that could happen for the Constitution is a new judiciary act banning the use of stare decisis in constitutional cases.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Wrong.

Marriage is the union of two equal, consenting adult partners not related to each other in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.

Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts because they meet those qualifications, and to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they’re eligible to participate in for no other reason than being gay violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment (see Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)).

I wonder how did Oliver Wendell Holmes, Earl Warren, William Brennan, Hugo Black, Ulysses Grant, William Kennedy, Teddy Roosevelt all miss this? I wonder why when the fourteenth amendment was ramrodded onto the states they didn't immediately begin same sex marriage. I wonder why I see no mention of marriage whatsoever in the debates regarding the 14th amendment. I think I know the answer. It was invented in the 21st century, promulgated by amoral celebrities and enforced by raw power of those seeking special interest votes.

Maybe you ought to study some history. I don't mean that as a personal attack at all, the history of bigotry is deeply ingrained in our history, and BTW, Jefferson's words in the second paragraph of the DoI seem essential to this issue:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"​

That phrase actually relates to Article I, Section 2, clause 5's natural born citizen clause and the Fifth Amendment's life, liberty, and property clause. The Declaration of Independence was written to King George. That phrase regarded equal in the eyes of God and that no man is born a subject of a King, which was a natural born subject, and became a natural born citizen in Article I.

Huh?

The only reference to a natural citizen is in Art. II and is about eligibility to be POTUS;

As for The 5th Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

There is no mention of a natural person anywhere else in COTUS, and Jefferson wrote the DoI well before the COTUS was even thought of. What source gave you the claim you've made about Natural Born Citizens?

A natural born citizen is derived from natural law, which is the basis of the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. Prior to the Declaration of Independence and the Revolutionary War, anyone born was born a natural born subject. After we won the war and created Constitution, then the same natural law in the Declaration of Independence was the basis for natural born citizen.

I was referencing the three basic unalienable rights in the Fifth Amendment: life, liberty, and property, which is based on the same natural rights.

The Magna Carta is the basis for COTUS, Natural Law is what Rousseau described when he wrote "man is born free and is everywhere in chains.

 

[Faun]

Except of course no one agrees with your interpretation.

The courts have been involving themselves with State's marriage laws since before Loving v Virginia- and the Supreme Court has ruled that states cannot violate a couples Constitutional rights.

Whose point of view is going to prevail? Well the Supreme Court's has for the last 50 years- not yours.

Pretty much everyone agrees with me except twentieth century activist courts..

Really? Pretty much 'everyone'?

Any living people?

Meanwhile- you are in the same league as those who argue that the income tax is unconstitutional, and that the 13th amendment was never legally ratified- you are spitting into the wind.

You are more than welcome to write out an argument regarding what I have stated that is incorrect.

Easy.

You claimed...

What is unconstitutional is for any branch of the federal government to involve itself with a state's marriage laws.​

... yet in starl contrast, the Constitution reads otherwise...

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;— between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.​

There is no Article III jurisdiction over the states, state's laws, or state's constitutions. The first time the Supreme Court tried that we got the Eleventh Amendment. They had limited jurisdiction over conflicts between states and interstate lawsuits, but the Eleventh Amendment restricted that jurisdiction further.

More nonsense. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land...

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.​

... and as previously demonstrated ...

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution​

 

[Faun]

So you want to ignore a dozen separate court cases, rendered by those entrusted with our highest court in the land, in lieu of your opinion?

As I stated, if you want to use a late twentieth century court ruling that contradict the debates of the 39th Congress and all first and second generation court rulings after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, then defend the rulings on their constitutional basis. Just saying a court ruled is not an argument.

It's not just "a court." It's more than a dozen.

Fantastic. Can you defend the constitutional basis of the first one and any that followed that did not cite the first one? You have to factor in the cancer of a written constitution for all subsequent rulings after the first activist ruling: stare decisis.

Stare decisis reaffirms previous rulings. That reinforces those earlier decisions. And referencing such rulings as "activist" does more to expose your bias than it does reflect on the rulings themselves.

Stare decisis is anti-constitutional. It is a cancer and supports bad rulings. The best thing that could happen for the Constitution is a new judiciary act banning the use of stare decisis in constitutional cases.

That is never going to happen nor should it. But based on what I've seen so far, it's about as wrong as anything else you've posted.

 

[Tennyson]

Pretty much everyone agrees with me except twentieth century activist courts..

Really? Pretty much 'everyone'?

Any living people?

Meanwhile- you are in the same league as those who argue that the income tax is unconstitutional, and that the 13th amendment was never legally ratified- you are spitting into the wind.

You are more than welcome to write out an argument regarding what I have stated that is incorrect.

Easy.

You claimed...

What is unconstitutional is for any branch of the federal government to involve itself with a state's marriage laws.​

... yet in starl contrast, the Constitution reads otherwise...

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;— between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.​

There is no Article III jurisdiction over the states, state's laws, or state's constitutions. The first time the Supreme Court tried that we got the Eleventh Amendment. They had limited jurisdiction over conflicts between states and interstate lawsuits, but the Eleventh Amendment restricted that jurisdiction further.

More nonsense. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land...

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.​

... and as previously demonstrated ...

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution​

The supremacy clause refers only to Article I, Section 8. The concern at the convention was the states interfering with the delegates powers of Congress. What is not mentioned in Article VI is the court's jurisdiction. Moreover, the Bill of Rights came after the Constitution, and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments had teeth were just as important as the first eight amendments.

 

[Tennyson]

As I stated, if you want to use a late twentieth century court ruling that contradict the debates of the 39th Congress and all first and second generation court rulings after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, then defend the rulings on their constitutional basis. Just saying a court ruled is not an argument.

It's not just "a court." It's more than a dozen.

Fantastic. Can you defend the constitutional basis of the first one and any that followed that did not cite the first one? You have to factor in the cancer of a written constitution for all subsequent rulings after the first activist ruling: stare decisis.

Stare decisis reaffirms previous rulings. That reinforces those earlier decisions. And referencing such rulings as "activist" does more to expose your bias than it does reflect on the rulings themselves.

Stare decisis is anti-constitutional. It is a cancer and supports bad rulings. The best thing that could happen for the Constitution is a new judiciary act banning the use of stare decisis in constitutional cases.

That is never going to happen nor should it. But based on what I've seen so far, it's about as wrong as anything else you've posted.

Bully for you, but you cannot provide one piece of historical evidence by one founder to support stare decisis and I can provide statements by each founder that opposes stare decisis and organism, which is antithetical to stare decisis.

 

[Faun]

Really? Pretty much 'everyone'?

Any living people?

Meanwhile- you are in the same league as those who argue that the income tax is unconstitutional, and that the 13th amendment was never legally ratified- you are spitting into the wind.

You are more than welcome to write out an argument regarding what I have stated that is incorrect.

Easy.

You claimed...

What is unconstitutional is for any branch of the federal government to involve itself with a state's marriage laws.​

... yet in starl contrast, the Constitution reads otherwise...

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;— between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.​

There is no Article III jurisdiction over the states, state's laws, or state's constitutions. The first time the Supreme Court tried that we got the Eleventh Amendment. They had limited jurisdiction over conflicts between states and interstate lawsuits, but the Eleventh Amendment restricted that jurisdiction further.

More nonsense. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land...

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.​

... and as previously demonstrated ...

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution​

The supremacy clause refers only to Article I, Section 8. The concern at the convention was the states interfering with the delegates powers of Congress. What is not mentioned in Article VI is the court's jurisdiction. Moreover, the Bill of Rights came after the Constitution, and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments had teeth were just as important as the first eight amendments.

Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution does it state the Supremacy clause is limited to only one section of the Constitution. Nowhere in U.S. law does it limit the Supremacy clause to one section of the Constitution.

You're making that up and it's not supported anywhere in American jurisprudence. Even worse for your claim, the U.S. Constitution defines its own Supremacy as, "this Constitution, and the Laws of the United States," not "Article I, Section 8, of this Constitution."

 

[Tennyson]

You are more than welcome to write out an argument regarding what I have stated that is incorrect.

Easy.

You claimed...

What is unconstitutional is for any branch of the federal government to involve itself with a state's marriage laws.​

... yet in starl contrast, the Constitution reads otherwise...

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;— between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.​

There is no Article III jurisdiction over the states, state's laws, or state's constitutions. The first time the Supreme Court tried that we got the Eleventh Amendment. They had limited jurisdiction over conflicts between states and interstate lawsuits, but the Eleventh Amendment restricted that jurisdiction further.

More nonsense. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land...

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.​

... and as previously demonstrated ...

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution​

The supremacy clause refers only to Article I, Section 8. The concern at the convention was the states interfering with the delegates powers of Congress. What is not mentioned in Article VI is the court's jurisdiction. Moreover, the Bill of Rights came after the Constitution, and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments had teeth were just as important as the first eight amendments.

Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution does it state the Supremacy clause is limited to only one section of the Constitution. Nowhere in U.S. law does it limit the Supremacy clause to one section of the Constitution.

You're making that up and it's not supported anywhere in American jurisprudence. Even worse for your claim, the U.S. Constitution defines its own Supremacy as, "this Constitution, and the Laws of the United States," not "Article I, Section 8, of this Constitution."

I am actually basing that off the debates. What purpose and evidence do you have for the reason for the purpose of the supremacy clause other than for Congress to protect their enumerated grants of power?

It does not say a lot of things. That is why the founders said to go back to the debates and capture the spirit.

 

[Faun]

Easy.

You claimed...

What is unconstitutional is for any branch of the federal government to involve itself with a state's marriage laws.​

... yet in starl contrast, the Constitution reads otherwise...

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;— between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.​

There is no Article III jurisdiction over the states, state's laws, or state's constitutions. The first time the Supreme Court tried that we got the Eleventh Amendment. They had limited jurisdiction over conflicts between states and interstate lawsuits, but the Eleventh Amendment restricted that jurisdiction further.

More nonsense. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land...

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.​

... and as previously demonstrated ...

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution​

The supremacy clause refers only to Article I, Section 8. The concern at the convention was the states interfering with the delegates powers of Congress. What is not mentioned in Article VI is the court's jurisdiction. Moreover, the Bill of Rights came after the Constitution, and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments had teeth were just as important as the first eight amendments.

Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution does it state the Supremacy clause is limited to only one section of the Constitution. Nowhere in U.S. law does it limit the Supremacy clause to one section of the Constitution.

You're making that up and it's not supported anywhere in American jurisprudence. Even worse for your claim, the U.S. Constitution defines its own Supremacy as, "this Constitution, and the Laws of the United States," not "Article I, Section 8, of this Constitution."

I am actually basing that off the debates. What purpose and evidence do you have for the reason for the purpose of the supremacy clause other than for Congress to protect their enumerated grants of power?

It does not say a lot of things. That is why the founders said to go back to the debates and capture the spirit.

The wording is quite clear ... "this Constitution, and the Laws of the United States,"

 

[Tennyson]

There is no Article III jurisdiction over the states, state's laws, or state's constitutions. The first time the Supreme Court tried that we got the Eleventh Amendment. They had limited jurisdiction over conflicts between states and interstate lawsuits, but the Eleventh Amendment restricted that jurisdiction further.

More nonsense. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land...

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.​

... and as previously demonstrated ...

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution​

The supremacy clause refers only to Article I, Section 8. The concern at the convention was the states interfering with the delegates powers of Congress. What is not mentioned in Article VI is the court's jurisdiction. Moreover, the Bill of Rights came after the Constitution, and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments had teeth were just as important as the first eight amendments.

Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution does it state the Supremacy clause is limited to only one section of the Constitution. Nowhere in U.S. law does it limit the Supremacy clause to one section of the Constitution.

You're making that up and it's not supported anywhere in American jurisprudence. Even worse for your claim, the U.S. Constitution defines its own Supremacy as, "this Constitution, and the Laws of the United States," not "Article I, Section 8, of this Constitution."

I am actually basing that off the debates. What purpose and evidence do you have for the reason for the purpose of the supremacy clause other than for Congress to protect their enumerated grants of power?

It does not say a lot of things. That is why the founders said to go back to the debates and capture the spirit.

The wording is quite clear ... "this Constitution, and the Laws of the United States,"

Do you discount the purpose and intent of the Constitution? Your "this Constitution and laws of the United Startes" are enumerated powers. The supremacy clause was understood by all the founders as a limitation on the federal government.

One of the myriad examples:

This Constitution, as to the powers therein granted, is constantly to be the supreme law of the land. Every power ceded by it must be executed without being counteracted by the laws or constitutions of the individual states. Gentlemen should distinguish that it is not the supreme law in the exercise of power not granted. It can be supreme only in cases consistent with the powers specially granted, and not in usurpations.

 

[dblack]

It's sorta like the Punch and Judy show.

 

[Syriusly]

Laws preventing couples from marrying whether because of the race of the couple getting married or because of the gender of the couple getting married are the same- they are both unconstitutional.

Of course not all people will believe the same thing- that is a given. But whether people personal religious beliefs say that a black man should not marry a white woman or a man should not marry a man have nothing to do with our secular laws.

Religions of course can impose any restrictions within their faith that they want to.

What is unconstitutional is for any branch of the federal government to involve itself with a state's marriage laws. Other than judicial activism that cannot be supported with a constitutional basis, the concept does not exist.

Except of course no one agrees with your interpretation.

The courts have been involving themselves with State's marriage laws since before Loving v Virginia- and the Supreme Court has ruled that states cannot violate a couples Constitutional rights.

Whose point of view is going to prevail? Well the Supreme Court's has for the last 50 years- not yours.

Pretty much everyone agrees with me except twentieth century activist courts..

Really? Pretty much 'everyone'?

Any living people?

Meanwhile- you are in the same league as those who argue that the income tax is unconstitutional, and that the 13th amendment was never legally ratified- you are spitting into the wind.

You are more than welcome to write out an argument regarding what I have stated that is incorrect.

You cited something as a fact- that was not an argument.
Pretty much everyone agrees with me except twentieth century activist courts

You have not supported your claim.

Virtually no living legal authority agrees with your claim- see how easy it is for me to make an unsubstantiated claim also?

Just happens mine is correct.

 

[Syriusly]

No- frankly the legal benefits are not why its contentious.

Of course they are. The legal benefits are why government regulates marriage in the first place. Otherwise it would be just another contract.

No- frankly its not. Marriage originally was just a matter of confirming legitimacy to heirs.

Government regulates marriages for a multiplicity of reasons- and that includes preventing the abuse of minors, and mentally unfit.

And people AGREE to those terms and AUTHORIZE govt for the reasons
we agree to.

But if you add conditions, such as the ones you object to that marriage
be only for one man and one woman, and people of a state DON"T agree
to govt regulations on those terms, then that law is biased by beliefs
and people demand to change it.

This is why LGBT argued to change laws because it does not represent their beliefs I don't have to agree with those beliefs to RESPECT when LGBT argue
NO we don't consent and believe in that.

So I'm saying the same for Christians or others even Gay people
who don't believe in pushing gay marriage through the govt.
If they don't believe in that, I don't have to agree with their beliefs
to see this needs to be changed or removed.

Marriage and benefits can still be organized and managed in private.

The Catholic Church organizes its own resources for its members.

The Mormons have their own social security on a temporary 2 year basis.

Anyone can do this, and going through govt is NOT required to set up
benefits, health care, etc just like Prolife Networks do.

If all people will agree to is CIVIL unions through the state
and use THAT to govern regulations on legal competence etc.
that doesn't have to introduce define or decide any terms of
"marriage" attached to the civil union or domestic contract.

The Catholic Church teaches its own rules through its schools.
If we AGREE on rules sure they can stay public through govt.
But where we disagree, those can still be established and followed in private.

Emily- you tend to use 100 words when 10 words would do. I am trying to parse down to what you are suggesting

Are you suggesting changing the current term we use for marriage from 'marriage' to 'civil unions' but have all of the legal obligations/responsibilities etc remain the same?

Or are you suggesting privatizing all of the legal obligations- for example- Social Security?

Dear Syriusly
A. only if that is what it takes to settle this issue
B. if all citizens of a state can AGREE how to keep public institutions and policies in charge,
by all means, I support consensus on the highest level attainable.!

Consensus on the highest level attainable?

All the citizens?

That never happens- all the citizens never agree on anything.

Conceptually the idea of consensus- finding an agreement that everyone can agree on is impractical over about 100 people.

it is not possible.

 

[Syriusly]

More nonsense. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land...

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.​

... and as previously demonstrated ...

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution​

The supremacy clause refers only to Article I, Section 8. The concern at the convention was the states interfering with the delegates powers of Congress. What is not mentioned in Article VI is the court's jurisdiction. Moreover, the Bill of Rights came after the Constitution, and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments had teeth were just as important as the first eight amendments.

Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution does it state the Supremacy clause is limited to only one section of the Constitution. Nowhere in U.S. law does it limit the Supremacy clause to one section of the Constitution.

You're making that up and it's not supported anywhere in American jurisprudence. Even worse for your claim, the U.S. Constitution defines its own Supremacy as, "this Constitution, and the Laws of the United States," not "Article I, Section 8, of this Constitution."

I am actually basing that off the debates. What purpose and evidence do you have for the reason for the purpose of the supremacy clause other than for Congress to protect their enumerated grants of power?

It does not say a lot of things. That is why the founders said to go back to the debates and capture the spirit.

The wording is quite clear ... "this Constitution, and the Laws of the United States,"

Do you discount the purpose and intent of the Constitution? Your "this Constitution and laws of the United Startes" are enumerated powers. The supremacy clause was understood by all the founders as a limitation on the federal government.\

You want to ignore the clear and concise language of the Constitution- and instead rely upon interpretations of 'the purpose and intent of the Constitution"

The language of the Constitution was ratified by the states- not the intent of the Constitution.

 

[Tennyson]

The supremacy clause refers only to Article I, Section 8. The concern at the convention was the states interfering with the delegates powers of Congress. What is not mentioned in Article VI is the court's jurisdiction. Moreover, the Bill of Rights came after the Constitution, and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments had teeth were just as important as the first eight amendments.

Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution does it state the Supremacy clause is limited to only one section of the Constitution. Nowhere in U.S. law does it limit the Supremacy clause to one section of the Constitution.

You're making that up and it's not supported anywhere in American jurisprudence. Even worse for your claim, the U.S. Constitution defines its own Supremacy as, "this Constitution, and the Laws of the United States," not "Article I, Section 8, of this Constitution."

I am actually basing that off the debates. What purpose and evidence do you have for the reason for the purpose of the supremacy clause other than for Congress to protect their enumerated grants of power?

It does not say a lot of things. That is why the founders said to go back to the debates and capture the spirit.

The wording is quite clear ... "this Constitution, and the Laws of the United States,"

Do you discount the purpose and intent of the Constitution? Your "this Constitution and laws of the United Startes" are enumerated powers. The supremacy clause was understood by all the founders as a limitation on the federal government.\

You want to ignore the clear and concise language of the Constitution- and instead rely upon interpretations of 'the purpose and intent of the Constitution"

The language of the Constitution was ratified by the states- not the intent of the Constitution.

The Constitution was based 100% on its intent. Every single deputy had to go home to their state and sell the Constitution. These were long drawn events with each word being debated.

An interpretation is not using the words of the men who wrote the Constitution, debated it, and ratified it.

 

[Tennyson]

What is unconstitutional is for any branch of the federal government to involve itself with a state's marriage laws. Other than judicial activism that cannot be supported with a constitutional basis, the concept does not exist.

Except of course no one agrees with your interpretation.

The courts have been involving themselves with State's marriage laws since before Loving v Virginia- and the Supreme Court has ruled that states cannot violate a couples Constitutional rights.

Whose point of view is going to prevail? Well the Supreme Court's has for the last 50 years- not yours.

Pretty much everyone agrees with me except twentieth century activist courts..

Really? Pretty much 'everyone'?

Any living people?

Meanwhile- you are in the same league as those who argue that the income tax is unconstitutional, and that the 13th amendment was never legally ratified- you are spitting into the wind.

You are more than welcome to write out an argument regarding what I have stated that is incorrect.

You cited something as a fact- that was not an argument.
Pretty much everyone agrees with me except twentieth century activist courts

You have not supported your claim.

Virtually no living legal authority agrees with your claim- see how easy it is for me to make an unsubstantiated claim also?

Just happens mine is correct.

'

If you want to lie and drag this into the gutter, I am out. I gave you the opportunity to write out an argument.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

[
(B) You do know that laws about race and marriage
are not the same as laws about gender or orientation, right?

To you, sure, you may see these as both "classes" to be protected by law.

But that doesn't mean all people BELIEVE as you do about MARRIAGE which is
NOT a 'secular function' for everyone. For some people it has religious or spiritual significance,
and that's why this should not be in govt jurisdiction to DEFINE for people..

Laws preventing couples from marrying whether because of the race of the couple getting married or because of the gender of the couple getting married are the same- they are both unconstitutional.

Of course not all people will believe the same thing- that is a given. But whether people personal religious beliefs say that a black man should not marry a white woman or a man should not marry a man have nothing to do with our secular laws.

Religions of course can impose any restrictions within their faith that they want to.

What is unconstitutional is for any branch of the federal government to involve itself with a state's marriage laws. Other than judicial activism that cannot be supported with a constitutional basis, the concept does not exist.

And it’s the 5th Amendment’s Liberty Clause that acknowledges and protects the right of all Americans to make personal choices and decisions about their lives absent unwarranted interference from the state.

And the 5th Amendment right of choice applies to gay and transgender Americans, prohibiting government from seeking to disadvantage citizens for no other reason than who they are, or for no other reason than life choices they’ve made; including denying same-sex couples access to marriage law they’re eligible to participate in.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

[
(B) You do know that laws about race and marriage
are not the same as laws about gender or orientation, right?

To you, sure, you may see these as both "classes" to be protected by law.

But that doesn't mean all people BELIEVE as you do about MARRIAGE which is
NOT a 'secular function' for everyone. For some people it has religious or spiritual significance,
and that's why this should not be in govt jurisdiction to DEFINE for people..

Laws preventing couples from marrying whether because of the race of the couple getting married or because of the gender of the couple getting married are the same- they are both unconstitutional.

Of course not all people will believe the same thing- that is a given. But whether people personal religious beliefs say that a black man should not marry a white woman or a man should not marry a man have nothing to do with our secular laws.

Religions of course can impose any restrictions within their faith that they want to.

What is unconstitutional is for any branch of the federal government to involve itself with a state's marriage laws. Other than judicial activism that cannot be supported with a constitutional basis, the concept does not exist.

No one ever said it was – Obergefell concerned state governments violating the 14th Amendment, not any branch of the Federal government.

It was state government which sought to deny same-sex couples access to state marriage law; same-sex couples who were first and foremost citizens of the United States, residents of their respective states subordinate to that.

And the states are subject to the Federal Constitution, including the 14th Amendment, where any laws enacted by the states repugnant to the Constitution are appropriately struck down by the courts, in accordance with Articles III and VI of the Constitution.