Guess what buttercup? The federal government is explicitly restricted to 18 enumerated powers and marriage is not one of them. In addition, the 10th Amendment explicitly states that anything outside of those 18 enumerated powers are reserved for the states.
Apples, and oranges. I was referring to violating Constitutional protections, and the Supreme Court's authority to decide such issues. In matters of Federal regulations versus State regulations, we have a long-standing tradition of allowing states to have precedence over the federal government for internal governance.Except Colorado and Michigan have legal pot. The feds don't enforceBullshit. Lincoln "went about it" in exactly the right way - a Constitutional amendment. That was the entire reason that the Constitution was created in a way to be mutable. And Federal Government has just as much power over marriage as State Government. And, again, you're wrong about the Supreme Court. Guess what, Snowflake? We are not a Confederacy. The States are not independent powers. We are, and have always been a Republic. The States are subject to the Federal Government. All laws, whether local, state, or federal are bound by the Constitution, and the Supreme Court is the sole arbiter of whether a law violates the strictures of that governing document. Period.You have to love Czernobog "logic". Because some men were denied their Constitutional rights, all of society should be denied their Constitutional rights.
Slavery was wrong....but so was the way Abraham Lincoln went about ending it. He shredded the U.S. Constitution just like idiot progressives did with gay marriage. The federal government has 0 powers over marriage. 0. So the Supreme Court had no authority to even hear the case, much less rule on it and create legislation from the bench legalizing marriage in all 50 states. That reality is one of many reasons why you angry progressives hate the U.S. and the Constitution so much.
Guess what buttercup? There are no federal regulations about marriage. Which is precisely why the Supreme Court struck down DOMA. However, that does not give the states blanket authority to create laws that explicitly violate the individual rights of citizens, as innumerated in the Constitution, just because some people don't like the private decisions of those citizens. When states do this, the Supreme Court has every right - in fact, they have the responsibility - to say, "Nope. You don't get to do that,"
No "individual rights" were ever "violated". Once again we see a disingenuous progressive lying in order to defend their irrational and indefensible position. No gay person was ever denied their right to free speech, to keep and bear arms, to worship as they see fit, etc. Hell, they weren't even denied the right to get married. Any gay male could marry any woman he wanted and any gay woman could marry any man she wanted.
Why is it every time a progressive is proven wrong they cry "apples and oranges"? There is nothing "apples and oranges" about it.
No matter how many times you lie, it won't alter reality. They could marry anyone they wanted to marry. The question was whether or not the state government would recognize that marriage. That's a decision for the citizens of each individual state to make.
You are the one liying. You say they can marry anyone they want, yet just in post #2124, you said any gay man can marry any woman he wants. so, a gay man is not free to marry anyone he wants, by your own words. You want to dictate who he can, and cannot marry.
Exactly. Universally, he can marry any woman he wants. She doesn't even have to be a citizen of the U.S.! So how is someone "dictating". Furthermore, he can marry other men if he can find a institution willing to "marry" them. It's just that some states wouldn't officially recognize that marriage. So what? The state was not actively blocking anything. Homosexuals would not go to prison if they held a ceremony and considered themselves married.
I don't want to dictate anything. I'm not an oppressive progressive like you. You what government forcing society to Nazi goose-step in the same direction. I want every one free to live their own lives and shape their own communities.
What do you want us to say to you Fascist?
Geez....you couldn't wait 25 minutes for a response? You have serious issues buttercup. Seek a mental health professional immediately.
Because you were talking about state recognized marriages and that's what was recognized by the states.
Again, the state does not get to violate a citizen's individual rights. Every individual has the Constitutionally protected right to marry whomever they chose. period. The state does not get to dictate who a person can, and cannot marry. There is no compelling reason to allow the State to make such dictation, so long as both parties are legally consenting adults.
Again, the state never "violated" a citizen's "individual rights". There is a monumental difference between recognizing a marriage and preventing a marriage. Homosexuals were never prevented anything. They could have held their own ceremony and acknowledged their own marriage. But like typical fascist progressives, you want society to be forced to accept your views.
You are talking about a difference without distinction. "Why yes, you can get married. Of course, it will be meaningless, and no one in this state will recognise it, nor will you be granted any of the actual rights, and privileges of legitimate married couples, but by all means, have your little marriage," Sorry, it doesn't work that way, and you know it. The state does not get to decide who's marriages are legitimate, and who's are not, so long as both parties are consenting adults.
Not so. As long as the state grants rights and privileges to married couples, it defines what marriage is. There are people you don't get to marry, even if you are both consenting adults.
Wrong. So long as the state grants rights and privileges to married couples, it is bound by the Constitution to treat all citizens equally regardless of race, religion, or gender. It does not have the constitutional authority to decide that some people have more right to "recognised" marriage than others.
