Kagan: "There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage."

Discussion in 'Politics' started by mal, May 10, 2010.

  1. mal
    Offline

    mal Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2009
    Messages:
    42,625
    Thanks Received:
    4,963
    Trophy Points:
    1,813
    Location:
    Coimhéad fearg fhear na foighde™
    Ratings:
    +5,027
  2. Modbert
    Offline

    Modbert Daydream Believer Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2008
    Messages:
    33,178
    Thanks Received:
    2,957
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +2,962
    Whoever Obama nominates is going to move the court to the right, since nobody will be as Liberal as Stevens.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. PLYMCO_PILGRIM
    Offline

    PLYMCO_PILGRIM Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2009
    Messages:
    17,416
    Thanks Received:
    2,855
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Location:
    America's Home Town
    Ratings:
    +2,863
    Well at least this shows she has a basic grasp of the constitution as marriage isn't part of it at all...whether hetrosexual or homosexual marriage isn't in there.

    Why not? Because the constitution isn't there to give us, the people, rights....we get those from our creator and they are unalienable.....the constitution is there to limit the federal governments power.

    +1 for the new nominee for understanding this basic aspect.
     
  4. Truthmatters
    Offline

    Truthmatters BANNED

    Joined:
    May 10, 2007
    Messages:
    80,182
    Thanks Received:
    2,223
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +2,233
    She will move the court to the right.

    The right will bitch abnd complain about it not being as far to the right as they want .

    The court will be even more futher right than the people of the USA
     
  5. Modbert
    Offline

    Modbert Daydream Believer Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2008
    Messages:
    33,178
    Thanks Received:
    2,957
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +2,962
    Except the only problem is that we don't get them from our creator and they are certainly not unalienable. Hence, they aren't rights either, since rights are things that cannot be taken away.
     
  6. Richard-H
    Offline

    Richard-H Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2008
    Messages:
    2,285
    Thanks Received:
    385
    Trophy Points:
    130
    Ratings:
    +508
    The Constitution may not recognise the rights of gays to marry, but the Declaration of Independance certainly does:

    "...with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

    If you're gay not being able to marry is a violation of both your liberty and your persuit of happiness.
     
  7. Truthmatters
    Offline

    Truthmatters BANNED

    Joined:
    May 10, 2007
    Messages:
    80,182
    Thanks Received:
    2,223
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +2,233
    You got it RH
     
  8. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    To say nothing of a violation of your asshole.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  9. NYcarbineer
    Online

    NYcarbineer Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    95,710
    Thanks Received:
    11,219
    Trophy Points:
    2,060
    Location:
    Finger Lakes, NY
    Ratings:
    +30,054
    Why wouldn't marriage be an inalienable right? Being the most basic and fundamental relationship that human beings have.
     
  10. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,503
    Thanks Received:
    5,897
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,920
    Using that logic if you are a pedophile not having the right to sex with children is also a violation of the Declaration of Independence.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1

Share This Page