C_Clayton_Jones
Diamond Member
^ As if on cue.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
^ As if on cue.
Supreme court has ruled to expand it's power in this way many times... BUT the constitution is DAMN FUCKING CLEAR ON THIS.
What ‘powers’?
Clear on what?
You make no sense.
I have never understood why Government is in the Marriage business to begin with. Government should deal solely in Civil Unions. Let the Marriage of 1 man and 1 Woman remain where it belongs. The Church.
More nonsense.
Marriage is a legal and binding contract and states write and regulate contract law. That law has nothing to do with religion.
That marriage law is subject to Constitutional restriction was made abundantly clear in the already cited Loving v. Virginia (1967):
In a unanimous decision, the Court held that distinctions drawn according to race were generally "odious to a free people" and were subject to "the most rigid scrutiny" under the Equal Protection Clause. The Virginia law, the Court found, had no legitimate purpose "independent of invidious racial discrimination." The Court rejected the state's argument that the statute was legitimate because it applied equally to both blacks and whites and found that racial classifications were not subject to a "rational purpose" test under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court also held that the Virginia law violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. "Under our Constitution," wrote Chief Justice Earl Warren, "the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State."
Loving v. Virginia | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law
One need only replace ‘another race’ with ‘of the same sex’ and the precedent is clearly applicable.
With Loving incorporating Equal Protection and Due Process to the states with regard to marriage laws, and Lawrence v Texas striking down anti-gay (‘sodomy’ laws as an unconstitutional violation of the 14th Amendment, it’s obvious the Prop 8 ruling will be upheld by the Court.
Obama and Biden are Republicans?
Who knew?"I believe that American society can choose to carve out a special place for the union of a man and a woman as the unit of child rearing most common to every culture.
I am not willing to have the state deny American citizens a civil union that confers equivalent rights no such basic matters as hospital visitation or health insurance coverage simlpy because the people they love are of the same sex".
..
..
.
Q: Lets try to avoid nuance. Do you support gay marriage?
BIDEN: No. Barack Obama nor I support redefining from a civil side what constitutes marriage. We do not support that. That is basically the decision to be left to faiths and people who practice their faiths the determination what you call it.
PALIN: My answer is the same as his and it is that I do not.
So? I disagree with the statements; I understand why Obama & Biden need to respond as they did, but neither you nor I know what they really think. DOMA is mean spirited, bigoted and a disgrace to our heritage.
What part of this sentence do you not understand? 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.
So, why are you only going after Republicans, when the leader of your own party, the President of the United States, agrees that marriage should be between a man and a woman.
What's not equal?
A homosexual man cannot marry another man.
A heterosexual man cannot marry another man.
The law is the same for all, no one may marry the same gender, regardless of their sexual orientation.
My point was right as in accurate.
What powers?? The powers granted to the government are specifically ENUMERATED.. and yes, that capitalized word is a hint.
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)
In a unanimous decision, the Court held that Congress had the power to incorporate the bank and that Maryland could not tax instruments of the national government employed in the execution of constitutional powers. Writing for the Court, Chief Justice Marshall noted that Congress possessed unenumerated powers not explicitly outlined in the Constitution. Marshall also held that while the states retained the power of taxation, "the constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof are supreme. . .they control the constitution and laws of the respective states, and cannot be controlled by them."
McCulloch v. Maryland | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law
What powers?Supreme court has ruled to expand it's power in this way many times... BUT the constitution is DAMN FUCKING CLEAR ON THIS.
Clear on what?
You make no sense.
More nonsense.I have never understood why Government is in the Marriage business to begin with. Government should deal solely in Civil Unions. Let the Marriage of 1 man and 1 Woman remain where it belongs. The Church.
Marriage is a legal and binding contract and states write and regulate contract law. That law has nothing to do with religion.
That marriage law is subject to Constitutional restriction was made abundantly clear in the already cited Loving v. Virginia (1967):
One need only replace another race with of the same sex and the precedent is clearly applicable.In a unanimous decision, the Court held that distinctions drawn according to race were generally "odious to a free people" and were subject to "the most rigid scrutiny" under the Equal Protection Clause. The Virginia law, the Court found, had no legitimate purpose "independent of invidious racial discrimination." The Court rejected the state's argument that the statute was legitimate because it applied equally to both blacks and whites and found that racial classifications were not subject to a "rational purpose" test under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court also held that the Virginia law violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. "Under our Constitution," wrote Chief Justice Earl Warren, "the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State."
Loving v. Virginia | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law
With Loving incorporating Equal Protection and Due Process to the states with regard to marriage laws, and Lawrence v Texas striking down anti-gay (sodomy) laws as an unconstitutional violation of the 14th Amendment, its obvious the Prop 8 ruling will be upheld by the Court.
Newsflash to Clayton Jones, I am not a rightwinger and number two every American has the "right" to marriage and can marry, they just can't have a slew of marriages that suit their sexual behavior, if fags can have gay marriage incestuous people should have incest marriage and polygamists should have their marriage. Fags are asking for something they already have the right to do.
"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."
The GOP's rejection of the principles upon which are nation declared its independence is reprehensible.
What makes you think that is agnostic? He is attempting to find a way not to offend gays without loosing all the blacks that voted for him. He is opportunistic.
So? He's still more likely to vote for marriage equality than the GnOP candidates.
No he's not.
Gays make up about 3% of the voting public, blacks are around 20%.
That's simple math.
It doesn't matter what the Gop does or does not support, marriage is not up to the Federal Government to dictate. It is a states issue. Marriage is not covered under the United States Constitution in any shape or form, and anything not in the constitution is left up to the states to dictate. If you do not like the marriage laws in your state feel free to move to another state or to elect a representative that will vote in the fashion that you believe they should.
Straight from the 10th amendment.
"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."
The Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with you.
Loving V Virginia
Zablocki v Redhail
Turner v Safley
Supreme court has ruled to expand it's power in this way many times... BUT the constitution is DAMN FUCKING CLEAR ON THIS
The Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with you.
Loving V Virginia
Zablocki v Redhail
Turner v Safley
Supreme court has ruled to expand it's power in this way many times... BUT the constitution is DAMN FUCKING CLEAR ON THIS
It sure is...which is why marriage equality will be a reality in no time...
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Clause 1: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."
and
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
and
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."
Supreme court has ruled to expand it's power in this way many times... BUT the constitution is DAMN FUCKING CLEAR ON THIS
It sure is...which is why marriage equality will be a reality in no time...
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Clause 1: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."
and
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
and
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."
Equality by getting government out of marriage.. GREAT!!
The other way.. not so much... forced acceptance of a choice is not the business government is supposed to be in
LOL, wow, one of the most preten[t]ious posts I've ever encountered wrapped nicely in a straw man with a pinch or two of hy[p]erbole - half baked and served with sprig of arrogance and self[-]right[e]ous indignation.
The GOP in practice violates the idea expressed here: "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"
A Libertarian would support the rights of all human beings in their pursuit of happiness, so long as the pursuit causes no harm.
You're a phony.
It sure is...which is why marriage equality will be a reality in no time...
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Clause 1: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."
and
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
and
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."
Equality by getting government out of marriage.. GREAT!!
The other way.. not so much... forced acceptance of a choice is not the business government is supposed to be in
And yet it IS the business the government is placed in time and again isn't it...
Loving v Virginia
Lawrence v Texas
Brown v Board of Ed
etc...
So? He's still more likely to vote for marriage equality than the GnOP candidates.
No he's not.
Gays make up about 3% of the voting public, blacks are around 20%.
That's simple math.
Here's some more "simple math"... (with even simpler pictures)
Gallup: For First Time, Majority Supports Marriage Equality
It doesn't matter what the Gop does or does not support, marriage is not up to the Federal Government to dictate. It is a states issue. Marriage is not covered under the United States Constitution in any shape or form, and anything not in the constitution is left up to the states to dictate. If you do not like the marriage laws in your state feel free to move to another state or to elect a representative that will vote in the fashion that you believe they should.
Straight from the 10th amendment.
"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."
The Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with you.
Loving V Virginia
Zablocki v Redhail
Turner v Safley