Gay marriage is not a constitutional right

[Syriusly]

[
(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.

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.

 

[dblack]

[
(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.

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.

You don't really get the whole concept of advocating for change, do you?

 

[Syriusly]

[
(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.

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.

You don't really get the whole concept of advocating for change, do you?

Oh he can advocate for any kind of idiocy he wants to advocate for- but he is not 'advocating for change'- he is saying everyone else is wrong- and he is right.

 

[Tennyson]

[
(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.

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. 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.

 

[Faun]

[
(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.

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. 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?

 

[Syriusly]

[
(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.

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.

 

[dblack]

[
(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.

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.

You don't really get the whole concept of advocating for change, do you?

Oh he can advocate for any kind of idiocy he wants to advocate for- but he is not 'advocating for change'- he is saying everyone else is wrong- and he is right.

Sometimes, most people are wrong. Like back when most people thought gay marriage was wrong. Know what I mean?

 

[Tennyson]

[
(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.

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. 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.

 

[Tennyson]

[
(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.

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.

 

[Faun]

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. 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.

 

[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. 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.

 

[Faun]

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.

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.​

 

[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. 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.

 

[dblack]

How sadly hypocritical to see those who have suffered so much under the heel of overreaching government suddenly embrace it.

 

[emilynghiem]

Sure, but the legal benes are why it's contentious. Conservative fans of marriage don't want to let gays on their gravy train.

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.
For smaller homogeneous states, this may be possible.
For bigger diverse states like Texas, two or three options or tracks may
be needed to accommodate the full range of population and representation culturally, religiously and politically.

If they cannot agree based on differences in beliefs they are not willing to compromise,
then just like parents who divorce, that is sometimes better logistically.
Even when parents agree to live in separate households
they STILL should work out joint arrangements to deal with their mutual
responsibility for kids' well being, care, relations, financial support, education.

But they no longer remain married to each other under one unified household contract
to take care of their kids. the parents AGREE what is the fund or account for the kids, and what are
their separate budgets for themselves outside of that.

We may see the same with parties separating
if that's the best way all families/people can be happy -- under the roof(s) of their choice,
while arrangements are made between the branched off groups where necessary.

If that works, and people agree to that, that's an option.
If they can stay "married" under one policy, that's good.
But if they start separating what each side wants to pay for, whatever
the people of each state agree represents their population, that is their
ethical duty and responsibility to protect and defend all interests equally.

You can't enforce a contract that not all parties agree to freely
when it comes to personal marriage and family policies, benefits, etc.
We know people are going to fight anything against their beliefs and will.

That's human nature.
Human beings need free choice and need to accommodate
individual interests and consent in matters affecting us.

We are going to have to learn to respect each other on an EQUAL basis,
and work out agreements based on mutual respect and consent, not coercion bullying or abuse
as has become political tradition, unfortunately, a very destructive habit to break.
But well worth the rewards of changing to cooperative and collaborative models of decision
making through the representative structure and process we have already.

Marriages don't work by coercing people into contracts.
And neither do govt laws on equally sensitive subjects affecting people's core beliefs,
values and identity.

Thanks Syriusly
I got behind in thanking all your messages, too
but now that I will do so for Tennyson also,
I can go back and credit you, for all your
intelligent insightful replies that are instrumental
to reaching an understanding of what we face here.

Thank you so much for those!
Please keep up the excellent advocacy
and outreach that is so important to bridge these gaps
that have been strewn out of proportion in the media.

We need thoughtful discourse as you offer, and not mindless bashing that does no good.
The fact we have people like you means we have a good chance to succeed. THANKS!!!

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Dear Faun until this is settled directly among the people,
it seems both sides are going to fault govt and courts for siding with one at the expense of the other.

If we keep moving forward toward solutions, that is what is going to last on the books.

Not the DOMA or the segregation laws, by which Rosa Parks was guilty of violation although the law was wrong,
or slavery laws by which those people were considered property owned by others and had to be returned
or this was stolen property punishable as a crime.

Since we know in advance that people are going to object as long as there is an "unresolved"
objection or bias in the laws (such as when half of Congress voted NO to ACA citing issues with it),
why not LISTEN to the objection and resolve it up front?

Why pass a contested law, then kick it to court to approve or disprove.
Why not correct it to begin with until both sides feel all objections grievances or conflicts
are addressed?

One person on another forum suggested a preliminary vote:
where Congress first votes if a new bill is Constitutional or not,
or if it requires an Amendment first to give federal govt authority to add or reform
to that extent or on that issue.

This would have saved all the mess over the ACA.
Now we have to fix it WHILE the contested legislation is being implemented
while half the nation is contesting it.

That's like person A who dissents being forced into a contract with person B who consents,
and everyone enforcing the contract while person A is screaming they didn't consent to it.

Why not fix what the objection was with the contract BEFORE enforcing it
so NOBODY objected. Wouldn't that be ideal?

Wouldn't we have better laws if we worked out the differences BEFORE passing it?
See example: http://www.ethics-commission.net
the Code of Ethics for Govt Service was passed unanimously
by Congress in 1980. And look how well written and clear
those ten articles are that apply to all areas of govt where
conflicts of interest or abuses may occur in different forms.

I consider this set of 10 articles to be as central
as the 10 articles in the Bill of Rights for people to learn and enforce together.

I believe the Bill of Rights is well written also,
even where the 2nd Amendment has been
interpreted two different ways; the way it is
written both sides of that debate feel their
side is represented in how it is worded.

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.

 

[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.

Dear Faun until this is settled directly among the people,
it seems both sides are going to fault govt and courts for siding with one at the expense of the other.

If we keep moving forward toward solutions, that is what is going to last on the books.

Not the DOMA or the segregation laws, by which Rosa Parks was guilty of violation although the law was wrong,
or slavery laws by which those people were considered property owned by others and had to be returned
or this was stolen property punishable as a crime.

Since we know in advance that people are going to object as long as there is an "unresolved"
objection or bias in the laws (such as when half of Congress voted NO to ACA citing issues with it),
why not LISTEN to the objection and resolve it up front?

Why pass a contested law, then kick it to court to approve or disprove.
Why not correct it to begin with until both sides feel all objections grievances or conflicts
are addressed?

One person on another forum suggested a preliminary vote:
where Congress first votes if a new bill is Constitutional or not,
or if it requires an Amendment first to give federal govt authority to add or reform
to that extent or on that issue.

This would have saved all the mess over the ACA.
Now we have to fix it WHILE the contested legislation is being implemented
while half the nation is contesting it.

That's like person A who dissents being forced into a contract with person B who consents,
and everyone enforcing the contract while person A is screaming they didn't consent to it.

Why not fix what the objection was with the contract BEFORE enforcing it
so NOBODY objected. Wouldn't that be ideal?

Wouldn't we have better laws if we worked out the differences BEFORE passing it?
See example: http://www.ethics-commission.net
the Code of Ethics for Govt Service was passed unanimously
by Congress in 1980. And look how well written and clear
those ten articles are that apply to all areas of govt where
conflicts of interest or abuses may occur in different forms.

I consider this set of 10 articles to be as central
as the 10 articles in the Bill of Rights for people to learn and enforce together.

I believe the Bill of Rights is well written also,
even where the 2nd Amendment has been
interpreted two different ways; the way it is
written both sides of that debate feel their
side is represented in how it is worded.

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.

Sorry to break the news.... it is settled.

 

[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.

 

[Faun]

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.

 

[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.

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.