Gay marriage is not a constitutional right

[Syriusly]

[
You cannot rely or authorize judges on benches to act as popes to legislate beliefs
and endorse some over others..

We rely upon judges for among other things, to rule on the Constitution.

Judges are not legislating anything.

They are overturning unconstitutional laws.

Judges have done this in a myriad of issues- including
Birth Control
Voting rights
Gun rights
Marriage law

The issue of birth control, gun laws, and marriage laws are all constitutional laws and are not under the purview of any branch of the federal government.

Nowhere in the Constitution has voting rights been conferred.

You have very simply stated the truth of the matter. The Federal Government is under the Constitution. Not vice versa.

The Federal government, state governments and all of us are subject to the Constitution.

 

[Syriusly]

Yes Syriusly and overturning an unconstitutional ban against gay marriage
is not the same as legislative responsibility for writing a law on marriage for that state.

Of course not- because the courts don't write law- they can only overturn illegal laws.

Just as they did in Loving v. Virginia- and just as they did in Obergefell.

That is one of the responsibilities courts have.

Yes Syriusly we agree on this
Where there is disagreement is whether it takes
WRITTEN laws or amendments to establish or "create" right to marriage
through govt, and it isn't just done by judges striking down other laws as unconstitutional.

The right to marry is codified by the Fifth Amendment’s Liberty Clause and the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment, a right immune from attack by government, as acknowledged by the Supreme Court.

The role of the courts and the doctrine of judicial review render the notion of ‘amending’ the Constitution to address all conflicts and controversies is ridiculous, ignorant nonsense – a Federal Constitution with 10,000 ‘amendments’ would be useless and unworkable.

Thank you C_Clayton_Jones
If one practices right to marriage the same way Christians
are asked to practice right to prayer, this is already protected.

Now, what do you think of this comparison
* if Christians in Texas who want right to prayer in schools
are only allowed to implement "moments of silence"
because of people who don't agree with Christian prayer
* why not ask people who want right to marriage in govt
to settle for "civil unions and contracts"
because of people who don't agree with gay marriage

would that be fair.
or are you going to do as Syriusly is trying to do
and cite specific case laws and judicial rulings
that defend right to marriage and try to use that
to overrule the States rights to implement
"moment of silence" as a secular alternative to prayer
and "civil unions" as a secular alternative to marriage

That is how it started...remember? They pretended to only want "civil unions". By the way the Texas was admitted to the Union with a Constitution which required all office holders to be Christian. No fault in it was found.

No- it started with gay couples asking for equal rights when it came to marriage. When those were denied 'civil unions' were proposed and passed in some places.

Of course the very same people who were against 'gay marriage' also passed laws against recognizing 'civil unions'

 

[Syriusly]

[
You cannot rely or authorize judges on benches to act as popes to legislate beliefs
and endorse some over others..

We rely upon judges for among other things, to rule on the Constitution.

Judges are not legislating anything.

They are overturning unconstitutional laws.

Judges have done this in a myriad of issues- including
Birth Control
Voting rights
Gun rights
Marriage law

The issue of birth control, gun laws, and marriage laws are all constitutional laws and are not under the purview of any branch of the federal government.

Nowhere in the Constitution has voting rights been conferred.

Well thank you for your opinion.

I will instead listen to the Supreme Court- a body of legal scholars who both have far more knowledge of the Constitution than you, and also the authority to enforce the Constitution.

 

[Tennyson]

Yes Syriusly and overturning an unconstitutional ban against gay marriage
is not the same as legislative responsibility for writing a law on marriage for that state.

Of course not- because the courts don't write law- they can only overturn illegal laws.

Just as they did in Loving v. Virginia- and just as they did in Obergefell.

That is one of the responsibilities courts have.

Yes Syriusly we agree on this
Where there is disagreement is whether it takes
WRITTEN laws or amendments to establish or "create" right to marriage
through govt, and it isn't just done by judges striking down other laws as unconstitutional.

Do we have a right to privacy? Do we have a right to marriage?

The Supreme Court says yes- we do- and what do they base that on?

The 9th Amendment
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The Constitution doesn't mention 'privacy'- but we do have the right to privacy- and aren't we all glad we do?
Privacy

The Fifth Amendment does mention privacy. It is described and and defined based of of writs of assistance, John Wilkes and Number 45, and Charles Paxton.

The Ninth Amendment regarded state's rights by limiting the interpretation powers of Article I, Section 8.

Not one mention of privacy

5th Amendment
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Obviously I accidentally used the Fifth Amendment instead of the Fourth as the Fifth was the subject of my last post.

The Fourth Amendment does mention privacy. It is described and defined based of writs of assistance, John Wilkes and Number 45, and Charles Paxton.

The Ninth Amendment regarded state's rights by limiting the interpretation powers of Article I, Section 8.

 

[Tennyson]

Same-sex marriage has been against the law in since the 1600s.

I have asked for proof of that claim for days now- and you haven't provided a single citation to back up your claim. Odd isn't it that you can pull out stuff from the Federalists papers but can't provide a single legal citation to back up your claim?

Or answer why 30 states suddenly in the last 20 years passed laws against same sex marriage?

I did. I provided one of the laws and the pertinent language in the law.

No legal citation- the 'law' you cited doesn't even appear when searched for online. Not on Lexis.
Lexis® Web - Results for ""New England Body of Liberties""
Not on Cornell Universities legal research engine
Site

Did you make it up? Maybe.

Now why did states suddenly start passing laws against same sex marriage- if it was already illegal?

Perhaps I can give you a few more examples of pre-Constitution laws and post-Constitution laws since you are consumed regarding the New England Body of Liberties.

Not consumed- I am enjoying pointing out that you cited a law that doesn't appear in any legal search engine- so support your claim that laws against same sex marriage have existed in the United States since the 1600's.

It is apparent that you are a-paint-by-the-numbers internet troll, so I will expend very little effort to present any actual facts to one of your ilk.

What you have pointed out is that you are dependent on the internet for this particular knowledge. Your choosing to get an education in American history and constitutional law on an internet search engine is probably the reason you have failed to investigate my elementary production of pre-constitutional state laws and post-constitutional state laws. I really cannot help you with that handicap.

 

[Tennyson]

[
Again with the New England Body of Liberties and a few more laws. Every single state had a sodomy law on the books in 1960 as well.

New England Body of Liberties:

If any man lyeth with mankinde, as a man lyeth with a woman, both of them have committed abomination, they both shall surely be put to death. Levit. 20. 13. And if any woman change the naturall use into that which is against nature, as Rom. 1. 26. she shall be liable to the same sentence, and punishment, or if any person, or persons, shall commit any other kinde of unnaturall and shamefull filthines, called in Scripture the going after strange flesh, or other flesh then God alloweth, by carnal! knowledge of another vessel then God in nature hath appointed to become one flesh, whether it be by abusing the contrary part of a grown woman, or child of either sex, or unripe vessel of a girle, wherein the natural use of the woman is left, which God hath ordained for the propagation of posterity, and Sodomiticall filthinesse (tending to the destruction of the race of mankind) is committed by a kind of rape, nature being forced, though the will were inticed,' every such person shall be put to death. Or if any man shall act upon himself; and in the sight of others spill his owne seed, by example, or counsel, or both, corrupting or tempting others to doe the like, which tends to the sin of Sodomy, if it be not one kind of it; or shall defile, or corrupt himself and others, by any kind of sinfulthinesse, he shall be punished according to the nature of the offence; or if the case considered with the aggravating circumstances, shall according to the mind of God revealed in his word require it, he shall be put to death, as the court of magistrates shall determine.​

Again with a 'law' that doesn't exist in any legal search engine.

I am not saying that you are making it up- I am just pointing out that you posting the claim here is no evidence that this 'law' against everything from buggery to masturbation existed.

Why don't you provide an actual citation?

Your choosing to get an education in American history and constitutional law on an internet search engine is probably the reason you have failed to investigate my elementary production of pre-constitutional state laws and post-constitutional state laws. I really cannot help you with that handicap.

 

[Tennyson]

[
You cannot rely or authorize judges on benches to act as popes to legislate beliefs
and endorse some over others..

We rely upon judges for among other things, to rule on the Constitution.

Judges are not legislating anything.

They are overturning unconstitutional laws.

Judges have done this in a myriad of issues- including
Birth Control
Voting rights
Gun rights
Marriage law

The issue of birth control, gun laws, and marriage laws are all constitutional laws and are not under the purview of any branch of the federal government.

Nowhere in the Constitution has voting rights been conferred.

You have very simply stated the truth of the matter. The Federal Government is under the Constitution. Not vice versa.

The Federal government, state governments and all of us are subject to the Constitution.

The state governments are only subjected to the powers they ceded in Article I, and the Constitution has no power over any individual other than treason. That is what is referred to as the rule of law.

 

[Tennyson]

[
You cannot rely or authorize judges on benches to act as popes to legislate beliefs
and endorse some over others..

We rely upon judges for among other things, to rule on the Constitution.

Judges are not legislating anything.

They are overturning unconstitutional laws.

Judges have done this in a myriad of issues- including
Birth Control
Voting rights
Gun rights
Marriage law

The issue of birth control, gun laws, and marriage laws are all constitutional laws and are not under the purview of any branch of the federal government.

Nowhere in the Constitution has voting rights been conferred.

Well thank you for your opinion.

I will instead listen to the Supreme Court- a body of legal scholars who both have far more knowledge of the Constitution than you, and also the authority to enforce the Constitution.

That makes a lot of sense to me. So I assume you will stop raping my ocular devices with your baseless constitutional and history conjecture.

 

[Tennyson]

Laws of the State of New York 1787:

BE it enacted by the people of the state of New-York, represented in senate and assembly, and it is hereby enabled by the authority of the same, That the detestable and abominable vice of buggery, committed with mankind or beast, shall be from henceforth adjudged felony; and such order and form process therein, shall be used against the offenders, as in cases of felony at the common law; and that every person being thereof convicted, by verdict, confession or outlawry, shall be hanged by the neck, until he or she shall be dead.​

Rhode Island's Public Laws of 1798:

That every person who shall be convicted of sodomy, or of being accessary thereto before the fact, shall, for the first offence, be carried to the gallows in a cart, and set upon the said gallows, for a space of time not exceeding four hours, and thence to the common goal, there to be confined for a term not exceeding three years, and shall be grievously fined at the discretion of the Court; and for the second offense shall suffer death.​

Once again- you cite a law against 'buggery'- how does that apply to lesbians? Or even gay men who do not engage in 'buggery'- it applies to any person- man or woman who engages in buggery.

You know for someone who loves to argue 'law' it is amazing how you make a legal claim- that laws against same sex marriage have existed since the 1600's and you still can't find any examples to support your claim.

You know- its okay to just admit you were wrong- that you were mistaken.

Your choosing to get an education in American history and constitutional law on an internet search engine is probably the reason you have failed to investigate my elementary production of pre-constitutional state laws and post-constitutional state laws. I really cannot help you with that handicap.

Perhaps someone can draw you a picture of how a man being with a man and a women being with a women being a capital offense would preclude same-sex marriage. My amusement with internet trolls quickly wanes.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Child Abuse Statistics

I hear conservatives constantly say "this is a Christian nation" and now the whole 'gay's can't marry or raise children it's dangerous'.

Apparently all these Christians and straight parents are harming millions of children without any help from anyone else.

 

[emilynghiem]

I have asked for proof of that claim for days now- and you haven't provided a single citation to back up your claim. Odd isn't it that you can pull out stuff from the Federalists papers but can't provide a single legal citation to back up your claim?

Or answer why 30 states suddenly in the last 20 years passed laws against same sex marriage?

I did. I provided one of the laws and the pertinent language in the law.

No legal citation- the 'law' you cited doesn't even appear when searched for online. Not on Lexis.
Lexis® Web - Results for ""New England Body of Liberties""
Not on Cornell Universities legal research engine
Site

Did you make it up? Maybe.

Now why did states suddenly start passing laws against same sex marriage- if it was already illegal?

Perhaps I can give you a few more examples of pre-Constitution laws and post-Constitution laws since you are consumed regarding the New England Body of Liberties.

Not consumed- I am enjoying pointing out that you cited a law that doesn't appear in any legal search engine- so support your claim that laws against same sex marriage have existed in the United States since the 1600's.

It is apparent that you are a-paint-by-the-numbers internet troll, so I will expend very little effort to present any actual facts to one of your ilk.

What you have pointed out is that you are dependent on the internet for this particular knowledge. Your choosing to get an education in American history and constitutional law on an internet search engine is probably the reason you have failed to investigate my elementary production of pre-constitutional state laws and post-constitutional state laws. I really cannot help you with that handicap.

Dear Tennyson thanks again for posting here. I recommended you and this thread to a hs student in govt.
This is very educational to give the historical background and references, thank you.

One major correction Syriusly is not a troll, by any means.
Of all the liberals who post their arguments, Syriusly and C_Clayton_Jones
are among the few who will cite history and work with the details to this degree!

Please do not slap down the few who actually attempt to take responsibility for what they are presenting.
I don't agree, but applaud their efforts to maintain this level of discourse at all
that I don't find with others who just parrot what other people say and don't go into the historical and legal meanings.

Thanks Syriusly and C_Clayton_Jones I recommended
your posts for the hs student to follow, since it's important to see both sides.
I likened this to the same debates that federalists and antifederalists went through.
It's very important and appreciated that we respect each other
and keep the lines of communication and dialogue open.
Especially where we disagree. Thank you all!
Yours truly, Emily

 

[Tennyson]

I did. I provided one of the laws and the pertinent language in the law.

No legal citation- the 'law' you cited doesn't even appear when searched for online. Not on Lexis.
Lexis® Web - Results for ""New England Body of Liberties""
Not on Cornell Universities legal research engine
Site

Did you make it up? Maybe.

Now why did states suddenly start passing laws against same sex marriage- if it was already illegal?

Perhaps I can give you a few more examples of pre-Constitution laws and post-Constitution laws since you are consumed regarding the New England Body of Liberties.

Not consumed- I am enjoying pointing out that you cited a law that doesn't appear in any legal search engine- so support your claim that laws against same sex marriage have existed in the United States since the 1600's.

It is apparent that you are a-paint-by-the-numbers internet troll, so I will expend very little effort to present any actual facts to one of your ilk.

What you have pointed out is that you are dependent on the internet for this particular knowledge. Your choosing to get an education in American history and constitutional law on an internet search engine is probably the reason you have failed to investigate my elementary production of pre-constitutional state laws and post-constitutional state laws. I really cannot help you with that handicap.

Dear Tennyson thanks again for posting here. I recommended you and this thread to a hs student in govt.
This is very educational to give the historical background and references, thank you.

One major correction Syriusly is not a troll, by any means.
Of all the liberals who post their arguments, Syriusly and C_Clayton_Jones
are among the few who will cite history and work with the details to this degree!

Please do not slap down the few who actually attempt to take responsibility for what they are presenting.
I don't agree, but applaud their efforts to maintain this level of discourse at all
that I don't find with others who just parrot what other people say and don't go into the historical and legal meanings.

Thanks Syriusly and C_Clayton_Jones I recommended
your posts for the hs student to follow, since it's important to see both sides.
I likened this to the same debates that federalists and antifederalists went through.
It's very important and appreciated that we respect each other
and keep the lines of communication and dialogue open.
Especially where we disagree. Thank you all!
Yours truly, Emily

Emilynghiem,

I guess we all have our definitions of what constitutes a troll. Mine is someone who avoids evidence or facts such as the laws I presented, does not provide historical evidence to substantiate their claims, relies on proxy arguments, and cannot make a rebuttal devoid of a churlish remark. If I have overlooked any evidence that Syriusly has presented or misinterpreted his statements as churlish, then I am in error.,

 

[emilynghiem]

Child Abuse Statistics

I hear conservatives constantly say "this is a Christian nation" and now the whole 'gay's can't marry or raise children it's dangerous'.

Apparently all these Christians and straight parents are harming millions of children without any help from anyone else.

Dear IsaacNewton The solution is still being censored from both sides.
The same spiritual healing that has been used to address, heal and even cure the causes
of sexual abuse and addiction
are rejected by the SECULAR media and politics that have demonized Christianity
but also censored by the Christians who reject medical research into these methods.

Christian doctors have been researching the process by which
spiritual healing is used to cure diseases, including mental criminal and sexual addiction that leads to abuse.
But the same doctors ran into as much opposition from Christians opposing the research
as I do with secular people opposing the practice of spiritual healing on its face.

So both sides and the "false division between faith and science"
have been cited for the reason these abuses continue
when the cure for them has already been found
and just can't get researched because of this divide.

 

[emilynghiem]

No legal citation- the 'law' you cited doesn't even appear when searched for online. Not on Lexis.
Lexis® Web - Results for ""New England Body of Liberties""
Not on Cornell Universities legal research engine
Site

Did you make it up? Maybe.

Now why did states suddenly start passing laws against same sex marriage- if it was already illegal?

Perhaps I can give you a few more examples of pre-Constitution laws and post-Constitution laws since you are consumed regarding the New England Body of Liberties.

Not consumed- I am enjoying pointing out that you cited a law that doesn't appear in any legal search engine- so support your claim that laws against same sex marriage have existed in the United States since the 1600's.

It is apparent that you are a-paint-by-the-numbers internet troll, so I will expend very little effort to present any actual facts to one of your ilk.

What you have pointed out is that you are dependent on the internet for this particular knowledge. Your choosing to get an education in American history and constitutional law on an internet search engine is probably the reason you have failed to investigate my elementary production of pre-constitutional state laws and post-constitutional state laws. I really cannot help you with that handicap.

Dear Tennyson thanks again for posting here. I recommended you and this thread to a hs student in govt.
This is very educational to give the historical background and references, thank you.

One major correction Syriusly is not a troll, by any means.
Of all the liberals who post their arguments, Syriusly and C_Clayton_Jones
are among the few who will cite history and work with the details to this degree!

Please do not slap down the few who actually attempt to take responsibility for what they are presenting.
I don't agree, but applaud their efforts to maintain this level of discourse at all
that I don't find with others who just parrot what other people say and don't go into the historical and legal meanings.

Thanks Syriusly and C_Clayton_Jones I recommended
your posts for the hs student to follow, since it's important to see both sides.
I likened this to the same debates that federalists and antifederalists went through.
It's very important and appreciated that we respect each other
and keep the lines of communication and dialogue open.
Especially where we disagree. Thank you all!
Yours truly, Emily

Emilynghiem,

I guess we all have our definitions of what constitutes a troll. Mine is someone who avoids evidence or facts such as the laws I presented, does not provide historical evidence to substantiate their claims, relies on proxy arguments, and cannot make a rebuttal devoid of a churlish remark. If I have overlooked any evidence that Syriusly has presented or misinterpreted his statements as churlish, then I am in error.,

Thanks Tennyson the people called trolls on here, Syriusly is far from that.
You have extremely high standards, and not many people would meet them.
I applaud that and don't want you to lower your standards, but
I think it hurts the cause to slap down the people trying to make the effort just because it fails.

The real trolls to me are the ones who post just to inflame and incite.
No thought at all goes into the posts to try to resolve or involve anyone in meaningful discourse.
Syriusly is really trying to pick through arguments back and forth.
Perhaps it's that we're not as adept or knowledgeable as you, you cannot tell who is trying or not.

If you are a musician with perfect pitch, and a student is off key, that's off regardless, I understand.
But as to whether that person is TRYING to tune better, and still not quite on the same pitch, I think it's better not
to call someone names who is TRYING, and save that for the people honking just to make noise and get a reaction.

 

[emilynghiem]

No legal citation- the 'law' you cited doesn't even appear when searched for online. Not on Lexis.
Lexis® Web - Results for ""New England Body of Liberties""
Not on Cornell Universities legal research engine
Site

Did you make it up? Maybe.

Now why did states suddenly start passing laws against same sex marriage- if it was already illegal?

Perhaps I can give you a few more examples of pre-Constitution laws and post-Constitution laws since you are consumed regarding the New England Body of Liberties.

Not consumed- I am enjoying pointing out that you cited a law that doesn't appear in any legal search engine- so support your claim that laws against same sex marriage have existed in the United States since the 1600's.

It is apparent that you are a-paint-by-the-numbers internet troll, so I will expend very little effort to present any actual facts to one of your ilk.

What you have pointed out is that you are dependent on the internet for this particular knowledge. Your choosing to get an education in American history and constitutional law on an internet search engine is probably the reason you have failed to investigate my elementary production of pre-constitutional state laws and post-constitutional state laws. I really cannot help you with that handicap.

Dear Tennyson thanks again for posting here. I recommended you and this thread to a hs student in govt.
This is very educational to give the historical background and references, thank you.

One major correction Syriusly is not a troll, by any means.
Of all the liberals who post their arguments, Syriusly and C_Clayton_Jones
are among the few who will cite history and work with the details to this degree!

Please do not slap down the few who actually attempt to take responsibility for what they are presenting.
I don't agree, but applaud their efforts to maintain this level of discourse at all
that I don't find with others who just parrot what other people say and don't go into the historical and legal meanings.

Thanks Syriusly and C_Clayton_Jones I recommended
your posts for the hs student to follow, since it's important to see both sides.
I likened this to the same debates that federalists and antifederalists went through.
It's very important and appreciated that we respect each other
and keep the lines of communication and dialogue open.
Especially where we disagree. Thank you all!
Yours truly, Emily

Emilynghiem,

I guess we all have our definitions of what constitutes a troll. Mine is someone who avoids evidence or facts such as the laws I presented, does not provide historical evidence to substantiate their claims, relies on proxy arguments, and cannot make a rebuttal devoid of a churlish remark. If I have overlooked any evidence that Syriusly has presented or misinterpreted his statements as churlish, then I am in error.,

^ by your definition most people I know avoid facts or arguments that don't help their cause ^ that doesn't do enough to distinguish people who are trying but just don't relate so they skip or ignore something vs people with no intent to try Tennyson

I use troll to mean someone who isn't trying to communicate or engage, just hit and run to start stuff with others.
And not stick around to discuss anything further. I save the term troll for that. So S and CCJ are not that,
but are here to try to defend and discuss what is wrong with arguments or statements as they come across.

 

[Tennyson]

Perhaps I can give you a few more examples of pre-Constitution laws and post-Constitution laws since you are consumed regarding the New England Body of Liberties.

Not consumed- I am enjoying pointing out that you cited a law that doesn't appear in any legal search engine- so support your claim that laws against same sex marriage have existed in the United States since the 1600's.

It is apparent that you are a-paint-by-the-numbers internet troll, so I will expend very little effort to present any actual facts to one of your ilk.

What you have pointed out is that you are dependent on the internet for this particular knowledge. Your choosing to get an education in American history and constitutional law on an internet search engine is probably the reason you have failed to investigate my elementary production of pre-constitutional state laws and post-constitutional state laws. I really cannot help you with that handicap.

Dear Tennyson thanks again for posting here. I recommended you and this thread to a hs student in govt.
This is very educational to give the historical background and references, thank you.

One major correction Syriusly is not a troll, by any means.
Of all the liberals who post their arguments, Syriusly and C_Clayton_Jones
are among the few who will cite history and work with the details to this degree!

Please do not slap down the few who actually attempt to take responsibility for what they are presenting.
I don't agree, but applaud their efforts to maintain this level of discourse at all
that I don't find with others who just parrot what other people say and don't go into the historical and legal meanings.

Thanks Syriusly and C_Clayton_Jones I recommended
your posts for the hs student to follow, since it's important to see both sides.
I likened this to the same debates that federalists and antifederalists went through.
It's very important and appreciated that we respect each other
and keep the lines of communication and dialogue open.
Especially where we disagree. Thank you all!
Yours truly, Emily

Emilynghiem,

I guess we all have our definitions of what constitutes a troll. Mine is someone who avoids evidence or facts such as the laws I presented, does not provide historical evidence to substantiate their claims, relies on proxy arguments, and cannot make a rebuttal devoid of a churlish remark. If I have overlooked any evidence that Syriusly has presented or misinterpreted his statements as churlish, then I am in error.,

Thanks Tennyson the people called trolls on here, Syriusly is far from that.
You have extremely high standards, and not many people would meet them.
I applaud that and don't want you to lower your standards, but
I think it hurts the cause to slap down the people trying to make the effort just because it fails.

The real trolls to me are the ones who post just to inflame and incite.
No thought at all goes into the posts to try to resolve or involve anyone in meaningful discourse.
Syriusly is really trying to pick through arguments back and forth.
Perhaps it's that we're not as adept or knowledgeable as you, you cannot tell who is trying or not.

If you are a musician with perfect pitch, and a student is off key, that's off regardless, I understand.
But as to whether that person is TRYING to tune better, and still not quite on the same pitch, I think it's better not
to call someone names who is TRYING, and save that for the people honking just to make noise and get a reaction.

Emilynghiem,

I like the cut of your jib.

 

[emilynghiem]

[
You cannot rely or authorize judges on benches to act as popes to legislate beliefs
and endorse some over others..

We rely upon judges for among other things, to rule on the Constitution.

Judges are not legislating anything.

They are overturning unconstitutional laws.

Judges have done this in a myriad of issues- including
Birth Control
Voting rights
Gun rights
Marriage law

The issue of birth control, gun laws, and marriage laws are all constitutional laws and are not under the purview of any branch of the federal government.

Nowhere in the Constitution has voting rights been conferred.

Well thank you for your opinion.

I will instead listen to the Supreme Court- a body of legal scholars who both have far more knowledge of the Constitution than you, and also the authority to enforce the Constitution.

Dear Syriusly when it comes to BELIEFS
only you have the right to determine your BELIEFS
CCJ likewise, me to my BELIEFS and Tennyson likewise

No Justice on any court, regardless of credentials or background history
has the right to dictate to any of us what are beliefs are as long as
we aren't breaking any OTHER laws which CAN be enforced equally.

I still argue that if you or Tennyson or CCJ or me
abuse party or courts to IMPOSE our BELIEFS through GOVT
so as to exclude disparage or discriminate against the CREED or BELIEFS of others,
that act of abusing collective resources through GOVT to abridge equal rights of others is unlawful.
It's against equal protections of the laws, the Code of Ethics for Govt Service to put PARTY before
public duty and oath to uphold the Constitution, and it's discrimination by CREED.

I respect that we have different beliefs as individuals.
But where it comes to BELIEFS like these in Public Policy,
no, I do not believe or consent to judges abused to impose beliefs without consent of others affected.

I believe to uphold Constitutional principles of equal protections,
it is legally necessary to kick conflicts regarding beliefs back to the
people in conflict to resolve among ourselves first.

That is my belief in consensus when it comes to policies where because
of our beliefs, we do not concede to majority rule being used or abused
to override our beliefs because someone else had the majority behind their belief.

I do not agree to do this with areas of political beliefs I find people do not agree to change by force of law:
gun rights
voting rights
right to life
right to health care
marriage and orientation/identity issues
prayer and spiritual healing and practice
death penalty abortion euthanasia termination issues
(and some areas of immigration and citizenship, legalization of drugs and prostitution etc)

Because of beliefs involved in these areas cannot be changed by force of law
without causing people to feel discriminated against by people of other beliefs,
I recommend conflict resolution, mediation and consensus on these issues
and assistance and means for separating funding and policy where disagreements cannot be resolved otherwise.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

[
You cannot rely or authorize judges on benches to act as popes to legislate beliefs
and endorse some over others..

We rely upon judges for among other things, to rule on the Constitution.

Judges are not legislating anything.

They are overturning unconstitutional laws.

Judges have done this in a myriad of issues- including
Birth Control
Voting rights
Gun rights
Marriage law

The issue of birth control, gun laws, and marriage laws are all constitutional laws and are not under the purview of any branch of the federal government.

Nowhere in the Constitution has voting rights been conferred.

Well thank you for your opinion.

I will instead listen to the Supreme Court- a body of legal scholars who both have far more knowledge of the Constitution than you, and also the authority to enforce the Constitution.

Dear Syriusly when it comes to BELIEFS
only you have the right to determine your BELIEFS
CCJ likewise, me to my BELIEFS and Tennyson likewise

No Justice on any court, regardless of credentials or background history
has the right to dictate to any of us what are beliefs are as long as
we aren't breaking any OTHER laws which CAN be enforced equally.

I still argue that if you or Tennyson or CCJ or me
abuse party or courts to IMPOSE our BELIEFS through GOVT
so as to exclude disparage or discriminate against the CREED or BELIEFS of others,
that act of abusing collective resources through GOVT to abridge equal rights of others is unlawful.
It's against equal protections of the laws, the Code of Ethics for Govt Service to put PARTY before
public duty and oath to uphold the Constitution, and it's discrimination by CREED.

I respect that we have different beliefs as individuals.
But where it comes to BELIEFS like these in Public Policy,
no, I do not believe or consent to judges abused to impose beliefs without consent of others affected.

I believe to uphold Constitutional principles of equal protections,
it is legally necessary to kick conflicts regarding beliefs back to the
people in conflict to resolve among ourselves first.

That is my belief in consensus when it comes to policies where because
of our beliefs, we do not concede to majority rule being used or abused
to override our beliefs because someone else had the majority behind their belief.

I do not agree to do this with areas of political beliefs I find people do not agree to change by force of law:
gun rights
voting rights
right to life
right to health care
marriage and orientation/identity issues
prayer and spiritual healing and practice
death penalty abortion euthanasia termination issues
(and some areas of immigration and citizenship, legalization of drugs and prostitution etc)

Because of beliefs involved in these areas cannot be changed by force of law
without causing people to feel discriminated against by people of other beliefs,
I recommend conflict resolution, mediation and consensus on these issues
and assistance and means for separating funding and policy where disagreements cannot be resolved otherwise.

No one is trying to ‘change’ belief.

Constitutional case law is binding only on government, restricting government only, not private persons or organizations, who remain at liberty to believe whatever they so desire.

 

[Syriusly]

[
You cannot rely or authorize judges on benches to act as popes to legislate beliefs
and endorse some over others..

We rely upon judges for among other things, to rule on the Constitution.

Judges are not legislating anything.

They are overturning unconstitutional laws.

Judges have done this in a myriad of issues- including
Birth Control
Voting rights
Gun rights
Marriage law

The issue of birth control, gun laws, and marriage laws are all constitutional laws and are not under the purview of any branch of the federal government.

Nowhere in the Constitution has voting rights been conferred.

Well thank you for your opinion.

I will instead listen to the Supreme Court- a body of legal scholars who both have far more knowledge of the Constitution than you, and also the authority to enforce the Constitution.

Dear Syriusly when it comes to BELIEFS
only you have the right to determine your BELIEFS.

Yep.

No one is arguing otherwise.

 

[Syriusly]

I have asked for proof of that claim for days now- and you haven't provided a single citation to back up your claim. Odd isn't it that you can pull out stuff from the Federalists papers but can't provide a single legal citation to back up your claim?

Or answer why 30 states suddenly in the last 20 years passed laws against same sex marriage?

I did. I provided one of the laws and the pertinent language in the law.

No legal citation- the 'law' you cited doesn't even appear when searched for online. Not on Lexis.
Lexis® Web - Results for ""New England Body of Liberties""
Not on Cornell Universities legal research engine
Site

Did you make it up? Maybe.

Now why did states suddenly start passing laws against same sex marriage- if it was already illegal?

Perhaps I can give you a few more examples of pre-Constitution laws and post-Constitution laws since you are consumed regarding the New England Body of Liberties.

Not consumed- I am enjoying pointing out that you cited a law that doesn't appear in any legal search engine- so support your claim that laws against same sex marriage have existed in the United States since the 1600's.

It is apparent that you are a-paint-by-the-numbers internet troll, so I will expend very little effort to present any actual facts to one of your ilk.

What you have pointed out is that you are dependent on the internet for this particular knowledge. Your choosing to get an education in American history and constitutional law on an internet search engine is probably the reason you have failed to investigate my elementary production of pre-constitutional state laws and post-constitutional state laws. I really cannot help you with that handicap.

I am the kind of troll that challenges a poster to back up their claims.

You are the kind of troll that makes unsubstantiated claims and gets pissy when challenged to back them up.

You have yet to provide a single law that prohibited same sex marriage- did you lie when you made the original claim? Or were you just trolling?

I researched using legal search engines- you used.....well some unknown, unspecified source.

Apparently just to troll.