Civil Rights - what are included?

[The Rabbi]

So you have no answer. Ergo there is no "right to marry." It is an invention of courts.

I did answer. You just don't like the answer.

It is a human right, that should obvious, but if it isn't: consult constitutional case law:

The right to marry and the Constitution

Where do "Human Rights" come from? What part of the US COnstitution authorizes or describes "human rights"?
That some lawyer pulled it out of his ass is not proof of anything.

I don't understand your line of reasoning. From where do you think human rights come? So far as I know, the Constitution limits to authority of the government, not the rights of citizens.

Rights are a social construct. They certainly do not come from 5 unelected lawyers in DC.

So, no one should be allowed to marry?

WTF? What is it with you guys? So if you dont have a right to something then ipso facto it is forbidden? Do you have a right to drink red wine? A right to wear a hat? Do you get to do those things anyway even though you dont have a right to it?

 

[SwimExpert]

To be able to talk about Jesus publically - and witness Christianity - without retribution.

But no other religion?

 

[Dana7360]

To be able to talk about Jesus publically - and witness Christianity - without retribution.

You are free to talk about anything you want, but others are just as free to say you are wrong.

I have no problem. Just don't muffle me.
And be intelligent. Saying you need Jesus is not forcing things on anyone.
If you feel pressure, that is on you....

Who is imposing retribution on christians?

Who is preventing anyone from talking about jesus publicly. There's a whole christian network on TV that runs 24-7 365 days a year.

I'm not sure what witnessing christianity is but from what I can infer, no one is being prevented from watching the christian channel or listening to christian radio or reading the bible or any other christian writing.

You christians have this persecution complex believing everyone is picking on you and taking away your faith. Which is nothing but lies and a bunch of garbage.

The reality is that if you had real faith in your religion no one or nothing could ever take it away from you. If you're so afraid that someone is going to take it from you, then your faith is a very weak and shallow faith. Personally there's nothing anyone could ever do to make me stop believing in my religion. I guess yours isn't a rock solid faith. And if it's not rock solid, how can you call it faith?

christians are picking on everyone of other faiths and with one faith in particular they're bombing the houses of worship, they're bombing their places of business, they're trying to prevent the worshipers from being able build their own houses of worship or even being able to live safely in America. There are others who some christians have openly and publicly said they must be killed for their lifestyle. You people want to write discrimination into our sacred constitution using your religion to excuse it.

Personally I'm sick of you people telling me our laws have to follow your bible. I'm like millions of Americans. I'm not christian and your christian laws have nothing to do with me. So stop trying to rewrite history and our laws to force your narrow and hateful views on me and the rest of our nation.

This attitude that everyone is picking on you and you're being persecuted is so old and tired.

The fact that the numbers of people who claim to be christian keep going down every year should say something to you about your faith and religion. If people are leaving the faith there has to be a reason for it.

Look at yourselves, what you do and how you persecute other people for the reason why so many have turned their backs on christianity. And will continue to turn their backs on your religion.

 

[the_human_being]

So you have no answer. Ergo there is no "right to marry." It is an invention of courts.

I did answer. You just don't like the answer.

It is a human right, that should obvious, but if it isn't: consult constitutional case law:

The right to marry and the Constitution

Where do "Human Rights" come from? What part of the US COnstitution authorizes or describes "human rights"?
That some lawyer pulled it out of his ass is not proof of anything.

I don't understand your line of reasoning. From where do you think human rights come? So far as I know, the Constitution limits to authority of the government, not the rights of citizens.

Rights are a social construct. They certainly do not come from 5 unelected lawyers in DC.

So, no one should be allowed to marry?

Out comes the display of lunacy.

 

[the_human_being]

Our Rights are natural rights i.e. given to us by the Creator. They are not to be taken over/away by the government. What exactly are these rights? We can infer much. What do you want, a running list?

Don't listen to me though. "James Madison argued that any attempt to enumerate fundamental liberties would be incomplete and might imperil other freedoms not listed. A "positive declaration of some essential rights could not be obtained in the requisite latitude," Madison said. "If an enumeration be made of all our rights," he queried, "will it not be implied that everything omitted is given to the general government?"

9th Amendment

Thus the Right to SSM is a fundamental liberty, one which some of The People attempted to infringe. I get it.

SSM? Yeah. I get it too. You posted questions but are not interested in what anyone else has to say. You are a smug nit who isn't looking for discussion, only for a chance to mouth off. Saddest of all, you are a second rate smart-ass.

Too many words used for an ad hominem. Try to answer the questions, if you can.

You have no duty to me to answer them, but posting a personal attack in response is both defensive and suggests you are incapable of critical thinking.

I read your post and inferred you were thinking about the 2nd A. True, false or call me another name. If SSM is a fundamental right or not? That too is question which requires any biases be set aside.

There is no right to same sex marriage. It exists nowhere in the Constitution.

Which aren't how Rights work. They don't have to be enumerated in the Constitution, or the Declaration of Independence. Marriage of any kind isn't mentioned in the Constitution either.

Marriage was endowed by our Creator.

 

[Dana7360]

So you don't foresee sermons being monitored in Churches in the future

Wow are you paranoid.

Here's a clue for you, people just don't care.

Americans don't care what your preachers say in their sermons.

No one is out to get you, seek help. It's out there.

 

[The Rabbi]

So you don't foresee sermons being monitored in Churches in the future

Wow are you paranoid.

Here's a clue for you, people just don't care.

Americans don't care what your preachers say in their sermons.

No one is out to get you, seek help. It's out there.

What was that?
City of Houston demands pastors turn over sermons | Fox News

See the problem is you dont pay attention. Thus you post stupid foolish things that are easily disproven.

 

[NightFox]

Personally I'm sick of you people telling me our laws have to follow your bible. I'm like millions of Americans. I'm not christian and your christian laws have nothing to do with me. So stop trying to rewrite history and our laws to force your narrow and hateful views on me and the rest of our nation.

Relax, I'm not a Christian either but Christians (or followers of any other religion) do not bother me in the least bit, they express their views and I am free to listen or completely ignore them as I see fit, You have the same right and opportunity. Getting all bent out of shape about it only serves to reinforce the perception that you cannot tolerate opinions which do not conform with your own.

"Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson

 

[Dana7360]

Some say that marriage isn't in the constitution.

Well the case before the supreme court wasn't about marriage in the constitution. What it was about what is in the constitution.

Which right there in the 14th amendment it clearly says that everyone has to be treated equally under the law.

Homosexuals were not being treated equally under the law so they did what all Americans have a right to do.

Take it to court. Homosexuals kept winning because there isn't anything in our constitution that says the government has the right to discriminate against homosexuals.

Please all you homophobes show me where it says in the constitution that the government can fragrantly discriminate against homosexuals.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

I did answer. You just don't like the answer.

It is a human right, that should obvious, but if it isn't: consult constitutional case law:

The right to marry and the Constitution

Where do "Human Rights" come from? What part of the US COnstitution authorizes or describes "human rights"?
That some lawyer pulled it out of his ass is not proof of anything.

I don't understand your line of reasoning. From where do you think human rights come? So far as I know, the Constitution limits to authority of the government, not the rights of citizens.

Rights are a social construct. They certainly do not come from 5 unelected lawyers in DC.

So, no one should be allowed to marry?

WTF? What is it with you guys? So if you dont have a right to something then ipso facto it is forbidden? Do you have a right to drink red wine? A right to wear a hat? Do you get to do those things anyway even though you dont have a right to it?

You missed the point. You have the right to do anything not forbidden by law, and if it is forbidden, that law must be constitutional. If the government forbids you to do something, constitutionally, it must show an actual legitimate need to do so. Since marriage isn't forbidden, and you are an individual with self-determination to seek happiness and you wish to get married, you have the right to do so. To seek happiness. That is your right and it is explicit in the Declaration of Independence, and in Constitutional case law, and therefore, you have the right to marry.

The Constitution limits the authority of the government, not the rights of citizens. Anything not explicitly forbidden by constitutional law, you have the right to do. Like drink wine and wear hats and get married.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Thus the Right to SSM is a fundamental liberty, one which some of The People attempted to infringe. I get it.

SSM? Yeah. I get it too. You posted questions but are not interested in what anyone else has to say. You are a smug nit who isn't looking for discussion, only for a chance to mouth off. Saddest of all, you are a second rate smart-ass.

Too many words used for an ad hominem. Try to answer the questions, if you can.

You have no duty to me to answer them, but posting a personal attack in response is both defensive and suggests you are incapable of critical thinking.

I read your post and inferred you were thinking about the 2nd A. True, false or call me another name. If SSM is a fundamental right or not? That too is question which requires any biases be set aside.

There is no right to same sex marriage. It exists nowhere in the Constitution.

Which aren't how Rights work. They don't have to be enumerated in the Constitution, or the Declaration of Independence. Marriage of any kind isn't mentioned in the Constitution either.

Marriage was endowed by our Creator.

Exactly.

 

[The Rabbi]

Where do "Human Rights" come from? What part of the US COnstitution authorizes or describes "human rights"?
That some lawyer pulled it out of his ass is not proof of anything.

I don't understand your line of reasoning. From where do you think human rights come? So far as I know, the Constitution limits to authority of the government, not the rights of citizens.

Rights are a social construct. They certainly do not come from 5 unelected lawyers in DC.

So, no one should be allowed to marry?

WTF? What is it with you guys? So if you dont have a right to something then ipso facto it is forbidden? Do you have a right to drink red wine? A right to wear a hat? Do you get to do those things anyway even though you dont have a right to it?

You missed the point. You have the right to do anything not forbidden by law, and if it is forbidden, that law must be constitutional. If the government forbids you to do something, constitutionally, it must show an actual legitimate need to do so. Since marriage isn't forbidden, and you are an individual with self-determination to seek happiness and you wish to get married, you have the right to do so. To seek happiness. That is your right and it is explicit in the Declaration of Independence, and in Constitutional case law, and therefore, you have the right to marry.

The Constitution limits the authority of the government, not the rights of citizens. Anything not explicitly forbidden by constitutional law, you have the right to do. Like drink wine and wear hats and get married.

You dont have the slightest ******* clue what you are talking about.
The government forbids from growing pot in my backyard. Do I have a constitutional right to grow pot in my backyard?

 

[Coloradomtnman]

I don't understand your line of reasoning. From where do you think human rights come? So far as I know, the Constitution limits to authority of the government, not the rights of citizens.

Rights are a social construct. They certainly do not come from 5 unelected lawyers in DC.

So, no one should be allowed to marry?

WTF? What is it with you guys? So if you dont have a right to something then ipso facto it is forbidden? Do you have a right to drink red wine? A right to wear a hat? Do you get to do those things anyway even though you dont have a right to it?

You missed the point. You have the right to do anything not forbidden by law, and if it is forbidden, that law must be constitutional. If the government forbids you to do something, constitutionally, it must show an actual legitimate need to do so. Since marriage isn't forbidden, and you are an individual with self-determination to seek happiness and you wish to get married, you have the right to do so. To seek happiness. That is your right and it is explicit in the Declaration of Independence, and in Constitutional case law, and therefore, you have the right to marry.

The Constitution limits the authority of the government, not the rights of citizens. Anything not explicitly forbidden by constitutional law, you have the right to do. Like drink wine and wear hats and get married.

You dont have the slightest ******* clue what you are talking about.
The government forbids from growing pot in my backyard. Do I have a constitutional right to grow pot in my backyard?

No, because it is forbidden by law.

 

[The Rabbi]

Rights are a social construct. They certainly do not come from 5 unelected lawyers in DC.

So, no one should be allowed to marry?

WTF? What is it with you guys? So if you dont have a right to something then ipso facto it is forbidden? Do you have a right to drink red wine? A right to wear a hat? Do you get to do those things anyway even though you dont have a right to it?

You missed the point. You have the right to do anything not forbidden by law, and if it is forbidden, that law must be constitutional. If the government forbids you to do something, constitutionally, it must show an actual legitimate need to do so. Since marriage isn't forbidden, and you are an individual with self-determination to seek happiness and you wish to get married, you have the right to do so. To seek happiness. That is your right and it is explicit in the Declaration of Independence, and in Constitutional case law, and therefore, you have the right to marry.

The Constitution limits the authority of the government, not the rights of citizens. Anything not explicitly forbidden by constitutional law, you have the right to do. Like drink wine and wear hats and get married.

You dont have the slightest ******* clue what you are talking about.
The government forbids from growing pot in my backyard. Do I have a constitutional right to grow pot in my backyard?

No, because it is forbidden by law.

So what is the actual constitutional need to do that, which you claim gov't has?

 

[Coloradomtnman]

So, no one should be allowed to marry?

WTF? What is it with you guys? So if you dont have a right to something then ipso facto it is forbidden? Do you have a right to drink red wine? A right to wear a hat? Do you get to do those things anyway even though you dont have a right to it?

You missed the point. You have the right to do anything not forbidden by law, and if it is forbidden, that law must be constitutional. If the government forbids you to do something, constitutionally, it must show an actual legitimate need to do so. Since marriage isn't forbidden, and you are an individual with self-determination to seek happiness and you wish to get married, you have the right to do so. To seek happiness. That is your right and it is explicit in the Declaration of Independence, and in Constitutional case law, and therefore, you have the right to marry.

The Constitution limits the authority of the government, not the rights of citizens. Anything not explicitly forbidden by constitutional law, you have the right to do. Like drink wine and wear hats and get married.

You dont have the slightest ******* clue what you are talking about.
The government forbids from growing pot in my backyard. Do I have a constitutional right to grow pot in my backyard?

No, because it is forbidden by law.

So what is the actual constitutional need to do that, which you claim gov't has?

The government has a legitimate constitutional need to maintain civil order.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Marriage is a contract.

And thus not a right.

Contract Law came to us as part of the common law, the same common law sighted by those defending the Right to be armed, who claim the 2nd A. only verifies the common law of the right of self defense.

 

[dblack]

WTF? What is it with you guys? So if you dont have a right to something then ipso facto it is forbidden? Do you have a right to drink red wine? A right to wear a hat? Do you get to do those things anyway even though you dont have a right to it?

You missed the point. You have the right to do anything not forbidden by law, and if it is forbidden, that law must be constitutional. If the government forbids you to do something, constitutionally, it must show an actual legitimate need to do so. Since marriage isn't forbidden, and you are an individual with self-determination to seek happiness and you wish to get married, you have the right to do so. To seek happiness. That is your right and it is explicit in the Declaration of Independence, and in Constitutional case law, and therefore, you have the right to marry.

The Constitution limits the authority of the government, not the rights of citizens. Anything not explicitly forbidden by constitutional law, you have the right to do. Like drink wine and wear hats and get married.

You dont have the slightest ******* clue what you are talking about.
The government forbids from growing pot in my backyard. Do I have a constitutional right to grow pot in my backyard?

No, because it is forbidden by law.

So what is the actual constitutional need to do that, which you claim gov't has?

The government has a legitimate constitutional need to maintain civil order.

Only as needed to protect the rights of citizens. That's the key.

 

[The Rabbi]

WTF? What is it with you guys? So if you dont have a right to something then ipso facto it is forbidden? Do you have a right to drink red wine? A right to wear a hat? Do you get to do those things anyway even though you dont have a right to it?

You missed the point. You have the right to do anything not forbidden by law, and if it is forbidden, that law must be constitutional. If the government forbids you to do something, constitutionally, it must show an actual legitimate need to do so. Since marriage isn't forbidden, and you are an individual with self-determination to seek happiness and you wish to get married, you have the right to do so. To seek happiness. That is your right and it is explicit in the Declaration of Independence, and in Constitutional case law, and therefore, you have the right to marry.

The Constitution limits the authority of the government, not the rights of citizens. Anything not explicitly forbidden by constitutional law, you have the right to do. Like drink wine and wear hats and get married.

You dont have the slightest ******* clue what you are talking about.
The government forbids from growing pot in my backyard. Do I have a constitutional right to grow pot in my backyard?

No, because it is forbidden by law.

So what is the actual constitutional need to do that, which you claim gov't has?

The government has a legitimate constitutional need to maintain civil order.

How does my growing a plant in my backyard threaten civil order?

 

[The Rabbi]

Marriage is a contract.

And thus not a right.

Contract Law came to us as part of the common law, the same common law sighted by those defending the Right to be armed, who claim the 2nd A. only verifies the common law of the right of self defense.

2A does not come from Common Law but is enshrined explicitly in the Constitution.
As usual you dont have a ******* clue.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

You missed the point. You have the right to do anything not forbidden by law, and if it is forbidden, that law must be constitutional. If the government forbids you to do something, constitutionally, it must show an actual legitimate need to do so. Since marriage isn't forbidden, and you are an individual with self-determination to seek happiness and you wish to get married, you have the right to do so. To seek happiness. That is your right and it is explicit in the Declaration of Independence, and in Constitutional case law, and therefore, you have the right to marry.

The Constitution limits the authority of the government, not the rights of citizens. Anything not explicitly forbidden by constitutional law, you have the right to do. Like drink wine and wear hats and get married.

You dont have the slightest ******* clue what you are talking about.
The government forbids from growing pot in my backyard. Do I have a constitutional right to grow pot in my backyard?

No, because it is forbidden by law.

So what is the actual constitutional need to do that, which you claim gov't has?

The government has a legitimate constitutional need to maintain civil order.

How does my growing a plant in my backyard threaten civil order?

Don't play dumb with me, rabbi, I know you're smarter than that. I agree that growing weed in your backyard is very likely not harmful to anyone, but the government (and most Americans, especially your fellow conservatives) would disagree; perceiving it as harmful to society at large.