Gay marriage is not a constitutional right

[Tennyson]

Dear Tennyson pure logic would tell us
that if states establish a religion or religious bias that
A. all their citizens agree to, nobody is going to contest it as religious imposition, so it will not be found
unconstitutional since nobody will complain or petition/sue for it to change
B. a number of their citizens DON'T believe in or agree with, then that WILL be contested as unconstitutional

(so it's the issue of CONSENT that makes it constitutional or unconstitutional)

If there isn't consent and there is a contested bias in the law due to clashing beliefs, this will cause
C. an argument whether it requires a 'consensus' of citizens to find it unconstitutional, 'majority rule' to determine if it is is or is not, or the FEDERAL GOVT to step in and decide if citizens are being deprived unconstitutionally

We will have the exact situation we have now with
1. people disagreeing about right to life, prochoice, and federal laws made by legislators or rulings by courts
2. similar arguments over the recognition of homosexual or transgender identity and marriage rights etc.

Tennyson we in fact DO have conflicts of religion going on with the govt and Constitution itself.
Some interpret and believe the history as govt founders DID establish an agreed process in creating the Constitution, where the conventions WERE presided over with prayer to God for wisdom to guide the process.

So this is in practice, an expression of the faith in the democratic process of establishing truth by "witnesses" in defense of one side or another, which is also reflected in the Bible, in Matthew 18:15-20 where trespasses are being addressed as a specific type of conflict, but this "due process of law" can apply to any grievance or issue.

If we BELIEVE in this process, and use Constitutional laws to express and enforce it, that is like a political religion because it involves govt processes.

I use these in GENERAL terms and contexts to mean PEOPLE (not just govt) redressing grievances.
So to me it is a spiritual process between people on a personal level first, then it extends to relationships between people and groups, and then the govt process reflects that collectively on a public or global scale.

I would say we DO have different denominations of Constitutionalism going on.

Emily,

I am not sure how to answer this. There are not any ways to paraphrase “neither Establishing or Prohibiting” the free exercise of religion. They are two separate phrases with two separate meanings, intent, and backgrounds. The establishment clause was created only as a prohibition on the federal government; this precludes any mention of state. The dual purpose was to avoid another Church of England, and to no give one Protestant religion an advantage over other Protestant religions. This was started at the convention between Madison and Ames in what is referred to as the Gentlemen’s Agreement. The free exercise clause came from Madison’s personal experience of how Baptists were treated in Virginia when he was younger. It only applied to the federal government as does the entire Bill of Rights.

G, Tenny, you are now claiming that the constitution only applies to the federal government, and doesn't cover what's not in the constitutions of all 50 states? Once again, not true.

As to your other blather, you just laid claim that the United States can have a Federal Religion, as long as it's Catholic, Coptic, Muslim (Sunni/Shia), any of the various forms of Judaism, Buddhist, Sikh, or any of the other THOUSANDS of religion - provided they aren't Protestant. That is pure blather, and not true. Which is why the establishment clause is as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." - you will note, that Protestant no longer exists, didn't when the Constitution was finalized. Sorry, bud, epic fail. As to your constant false claims that states can establish a religion, that too is not true. The Supreme Court made clear in a landmark ruling in 1947 that the Establishment Clause does apply to states. You are simply parroting a far right pipe dream.

The topic is the Bill of Rights. Why don't you copy and paste the preamble to the Bill of Rights and the first sentence of the Bill of Rights and explain who it applies to.

I did not claim that the US could have a national religion.

The states has state supported religions long after the Constitution was ratified. Why? Because it does not violate the Constitution.

This is about the Constitution and Bill of Rights, not random twentieth century activist court rulings. The first requires intellect and education, the second does not. I prefer the first.

Yes you did, TROLL. You claimed it only applied to Protestant religions. For goodness sake, if you expand this response, you'll see where you were QUOTED saying it prohibited Protestants. Why don't you stop. The topic is Gay Marriage is not a constitutional right, not the entire constitution and the entire bill of rights. And stop boring us with your "random twentieth century activist court rulings". The only time you have used this phrase is when the SCOTUS ruling is something you disagree with. Does that mean you are in full agreement, and as a strict constructionist (to explain to someone as illiterate as yourself) that you refer to a particular legal philosopy of judicial interpretation that limits or restricts judicial interpretation. Then literally, you are, under the second amendment, bound to use weapons of those days only, so turn in everything but your one-shot weapons and cannons. Antonin and Thomas both changed from strict constructionist to "20th century activist judges" when it comes to one of their pet projects, the same as you.

Again, the topic is the Bill of Rights. Why don't you copy and paste the preamble to the Bill of Rights and the first sentence of the Bill of Rights and explain who it applies to.

I did not claim that the US could have a national religion.

The states had state supported religions long after the Constitution was ratified. Why? Because it does not violate the Constitution.

This is about the Constitution and Bill of Rights, not random twentieth century activist court rulings. The first requires intellect and education, the second does not. I prefer the first.

All you have are twentieth century activist court rulings. You have never once relied on the language, the debates, or the intent of any part of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

Your attempt to paint me in a corner regarding the Second Amendment is impotent. I never made that statement nor did I allude to that statement.

Emily,

The states had state sponsored religions into the eighteenth century. No religion was imposed on anyone. The advantage was receiving tax money from the state. All the states had different religions. There was no constitutional basis against what the states were doing. It is the same as the Fifteenth Amendment, the Nineteenth Amendment, and the reconstruction Congress' approving the state's anti-miscegenation laws. If the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment meant what activist courts have created that they meant, there would be no reason for the amendments because they could have just sued. They did not sue because the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection and due process clauses were only applicable for judicial proceedings.

 

[Sneekin]

We all have the same rights, marriage is a right. Sexual preference isn't a right. Is that even in the constitution? Homosexuals are a artificial group made up by liberals. I have Gay liberal transsexual relatives, I get it. I just don't accept it. My own personal opinion, I do have that right, don't I?

I have gay conservative friends. Homosexuals are not an artificial group, they EXIST. Depending on the state, they have explicit rights. Under various EEO Laws/Regs/Rulings, they also have a subset of those rights under the applicable law as well. Learn the difference between a transsexual and a gay person. A post-op transsexual female who has sexual congress with a man is not gay. If she does same with a woman, she would be a Lesbian. Big difference between L&G (same sex), B (Bisexual - attracted to men and women), and T (transgendered, which you apparently know nothing about.

 

[Sneekin]

All you have are twentieth century activist court rulings. You have never once relied on the language, the debates, or the intent of any part of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights..

Since the current court rulings that are in effect and are binding rely upon the language and intent of the Constitution(you do know that the Bill of Rights are part of the Constitution- right? Saying the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is like saying you were relying upon the Old Testament- and the 10 Commandments. )

The Bill of Rights are part of the Constitution? When did that happen? That was not the intent. Why was the first draft of the Bill of Rights rejected from being inserted into the body of the articles of the Constitution that the respective rights applied?

Troll - The Bill of Rights is the collective name for the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. This should have been taught to you by sixth grade if not sooner. Did you not even complete the sixth grade?

 

[Sneekin]

Dear Tennyson pure logic would tell us
that if states establish a religion or religious bias that
A. all their citizens agree to, nobody is going to contest it as religious imposition, so it will not be found
unconstitutional since nobody will complain or petition/sue for it to change
B. a number of their citizens DON'T believe in or agree with, then that WILL be contested as unconstitutional

(so it's the issue of CONSENT that makes it constitutional or unconstitutional)

If there isn't consent and there is a contested bias in the law due to clashing beliefs, this will cause
C. an argument whether it requires a 'consensus' of citizens to find it unconstitutional, 'majority rule' to determine if it is is or is not, or the FEDERAL GOVT to step in and decide if citizens are being deprived unconstitutionally

We will have the exact situation we have now with
1. people disagreeing about right to life, prochoice, and federal laws made by legislators or rulings by courts
2. similar arguments over the recognition of homosexual or transgender identity and marriage rights etc.

Tennyson we in fact DO have conflicts of religion going on with the govt and Constitution itself.
Some interpret and believe the history as govt founders DID establish an agreed process in creating the Constitution, where the conventions WERE presided over with prayer to God for wisdom to guide the process.

So this is in practice, an expression of the faith in the democratic process of establishing truth by "witnesses" in defense of one side or another, which is also reflected in the Bible, in Matthew 18:15-20 where trespasses are being addressed as a specific type of conflict, but this "due process of law" can apply to any grievance or issue.

If we BELIEVE in this process, and use Constitutional laws to express and enforce it, that is like a political religion because it involves govt processes.

I use these in GENERAL terms and contexts to mean PEOPLE (not just govt) redressing grievances.
So to me it is a spiritual process between people on a personal level first, then it extends to relationships between people and groups, and then the govt process reflects that collectively on a public or global scale.

I would say we DO have different denominations of Constitutionalism going on.

G, Tenny, you are now claiming that the constitution only applies to the federal government, and doesn't cover what's not in the constitutions of all 50 states? Once again, not true.

As to your other blather, you just laid claim that the United States can have a Federal Religion, as long as it's Catholic, Coptic, Muslim (Sunni/Shia), any of the various forms of Judaism, Buddhist, Sikh, or any of the other THOUSANDS of religion - provided they aren't Protestant. That is pure blather, and not true. Which is why the establishment clause is as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." - you will note, that Protestant no longer exists, didn't when the Constitution was finalized. Sorry, bud, epic fail. As to your constant false claims that states can establish a religion, that too is not true. The Supreme Court made clear in a landmark ruling in 1947 that the Establishment Clause does apply to states. You are simply parroting a far right pipe dream.

The topic is the Bill of Rights. Why don't you copy and paste the preamble to the Bill of Rights and the first sentence of the Bill of Rights and explain who it applies to.

I did not claim that the US could have a national religion.

The states has state supported religions long after the Constitution was ratified. Why? Because it does not violate the Constitution.

This is about the Constitution and Bill of Rights, not random twentieth century activist court rulings. The first requires intellect and education, the second does not. I prefer the first.

Yes you did, TROLL. You claimed it only applied to Protestant religions. For goodness sake, if you expand this response, you'll see where you were QUOTED saying it prohibited Protestants. Why don't you stop. The topic is Gay Marriage is not a constitutional right, not the entire constitution and the entire bill of rights. And stop boring us with your "random twentieth century activist court rulings". The only time you have used this phrase is when the SCOTUS ruling is something you disagree with. Does that mean you are in full agreement, and as a strict constructionist (to explain to someone as illiterate as yourself) that you refer to a particular legal philosopy of judicial interpretation that limits or restricts judicial interpretation. Then literally, you are, under the second amendment, bound to use weapons of those days only, so turn in everything but your one-shot weapons and cannons. Antonin and Thomas both changed from strict constructionist to "20th century activist judges" when it comes to one of their pet projects, the same as you.

Again, the topic is the Bill of Rights. Why don't you copy and paste the preamble to the Bill of Rights and the first sentence of the Bill of Rights and explain who it applies to.

I did not claim that the US could have a national religion.

The states had state supported religions long after the Constitution was ratified. Why? Because it does not violate the Constitution.

This is about the Constitution and Bill of Rights, not random twentieth century activist court rulings. The first requires intellect and education, the second does not. I prefer the first.

All you have are twentieth century activist court rulings. You have never once relied on the language, the debates, or the intent of any part of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

Your attempt to paint me in a corner regarding the Second Amendment is impotent. I never made that statement nor did I allude to that statement.

Emily,

The states had state sponsored religions into the eighteenth century. No religion was imposed on anyone. The advantage was receiving tax money from the state. All the states had different religions. There was no constitutional basis against what the states were doing. It is the same as the Fifteenth Amendment, the Nineteenth Amendment, and the reconstruction Congress' approving the state's anti-miscegenation laws. If the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment meant what activist courts have created that they meant, there would be no reason for the amendments because they could have just sued. They did not sue because the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection and due process clauses were only applicable for judicial proceedings.

Syriusly, get a load of this - there's no need for the 14th amendment, because people could have just sued using the principals of the 14th amendment. Tenny must not realize that you only sue in judicial proceedings, as judicial proceedings are actions carried out in a court of law. I still want to know how one sues without having applicable law in place. Oh yes, that's why he's turning in his guns, since he can only have single shot revolvers and muskets, and cannons. His teachers are shaking their heads in embarrassment. Hint -all we have, according to you are 21st century activist court rulings - you aren't even in the right century. And according to you, we then use activist court rulings from the 18th century, 19th century, 20th century, (and as you ignorantly left out), 21st century. You do realize the SSM rulings were THIS century, Tenny?

 

[Tennyson]

All you have are twentieth century activist court rulings. You have never once relied on the language, the debates, or the intent of any part of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights..

Since the current court rulings that are in effect and are binding rely upon the language and intent of the Constitution(you do know that the Bill of Rights are part of the Constitution- right? Saying the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is like saying you were relying upon the Old Testament- and the 10 Commandments. )

The Bill of Rights are part of the Constitution? When did that happen? That was not the intent. Why was the first draft of the Bill of Rights rejected from being inserted into the body of the articles of the Constitution that the respective rights applied?

Troll - The Bill of Rights is the collective name for the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. This should have been taught to you by sixth grade if not sooner. Did you not even complete the sixth grade?

You seem to have forgotten to address this:

Why was the first draft of the Bill of Rights rejected from being inserted into the body of the articles of the Constitution that the respective rights applied? This would have made the Bill of Rights part of the Constitution and subject to the Article V amendment process. The idea of making the Bill of Rights part of the Constitution as were the Declaration of Rights in the Virginia constitution was summarily rejected.

 

[Sneekin]

Tenny, as several of us have informed you, on numerous occasions, we will not answer your questions until you answer ours. You've never answered a single one. We may make exceptions, but only to further demonstrate ignorance, such as you not realizing the century court ruling were made (after all, one of them was in 2015, and that was SOOOOO long ago). Additionally, you'll notice many aren't going to answer you, because you don't specifically address anyone, so people aren't going to wade through your voluminous BS where you continually regurgitate the same misinformation regarding several people's comments. Model yourself off of Emily, Seriously, myself, Clayton, etc, who call you out/address you. Otherwise, you just further demonstrate that you are nothing but the shallowest of internet trolls.

 

[Tennyson]

Dear Tennyson pure logic would tell us
that if states establish a religion or religious bias that
A. all their citizens agree to, nobody is going to contest it as religious imposition, so it will not be found
unconstitutional since nobody will complain or petition/sue for it to change
B. a number of their citizens DON'T believe in or agree with, then that WILL be contested as unconstitutional

(so it's the issue of CONSENT that makes it constitutional or unconstitutional)

If there isn't consent and there is a contested bias in the law due to clashing beliefs, this will cause
C. an argument whether it requires a 'consensus' of citizens to find it unconstitutional, 'majority rule' to determine if it is is or is not, or the FEDERAL GOVT to step in and decide if citizens are being deprived unconstitutionally

We will have the exact situation we have now with
1. people disagreeing about right to life, prochoice, and federal laws made by legislators or rulings by courts
2. similar arguments over the recognition of homosexual or transgender identity and marriage rights etc.

Tennyson we in fact DO have conflicts of religion going on with the govt and Constitution itself.
Some interpret and believe the history as govt founders DID establish an agreed process in creating the Constitution, where the conventions WERE presided over with prayer to God for wisdom to guide the process.

So this is in practice, an expression of the faith in the democratic process of establishing truth by "witnesses" in defense of one side or another, which is also reflected in the Bible, in Matthew 18:15-20 where trespasses are being addressed as a specific type of conflict, but this "due process of law" can apply to any grievance or issue.

If we BELIEVE in this process, and use Constitutional laws to express and enforce it, that is like a political religion because it involves govt processes.

I use these in GENERAL terms and contexts to mean PEOPLE (not just govt) redressing grievances.
So to me it is a spiritual process between people on a personal level first, then it extends to relationships between people and groups, and then the govt process reflects that collectively on a public or global scale.

I would say we DO have different denominations of Constitutionalism going on.

The topic is the Bill of Rights. Why don't you copy and paste the preamble to the Bill of Rights and the first sentence of the Bill of Rights and explain who it applies to.

I did not claim that the US could have a national religion.

The states has state supported religions long after the Constitution was ratified. Why? Because it does not violate the Constitution.

This is about the Constitution and Bill of Rights, not random twentieth century activist court rulings. The first requires intellect and education, the second does not. I prefer the first.

Yes you did, TROLL. You claimed it only applied to Protestant religions. For goodness sake, if you expand this response, you'll see where you were QUOTED saying it prohibited Protestants. Why don't you stop. The topic is Gay Marriage is not a constitutional right, not the entire constitution and the entire bill of rights. And stop boring us with your "random twentieth century activist court rulings". The only time you have used this phrase is when the SCOTUS ruling is something you disagree with. Does that mean you are in full agreement, and as a strict constructionist (to explain to someone as illiterate as yourself) that you refer to a particular legal philosopy of judicial interpretation that limits or restricts judicial interpretation. Then literally, you are, under the second amendment, bound to use weapons of those days only, so turn in everything but your one-shot weapons and cannons. Antonin and Thomas both changed from strict constructionist to "20th century activist judges" when it comes to one of their pet projects, the same as you.

Again, the topic is the Bill of Rights. Why don't you copy and paste the preamble to the Bill of Rights and the first sentence of the Bill of Rights and explain who it applies to.

I did not claim that the US could have a national religion.

The states had state supported religions long after the Constitution was ratified. Why? Because it does not violate the Constitution.

This is about the Constitution and Bill of Rights, not random twentieth century activist court rulings. The first requires intellect and education, the second does not. I prefer the first.

All you have are twentieth century activist court rulings. You have never once relied on the language, the debates, or the intent of any part of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

Your attempt to paint me in a corner regarding the Second Amendment is impotent. I never made that statement nor did I allude to that statement.

Emily,

The states had state sponsored religions into the eighteenth century. No religion was imposed on anyone. The advantage was receiving tax money from the state. All the states had different religions. There was no constitutional basis against what the states were doing. It is the same as the Fifteenth Amendment, the Nineteenth Amendment, and the reconstruction Congress' approving the state's anti-miscegenation laws. If the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment meant what activist courts have created that they meant, there would be no reason for the amendments because they could have just sued. They did not sue because the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection and due process clauses were only applicable for judicial proceedings.

Syriusly, get a load of this - there's no need for the 14th amendment, because people could have just sued using the principals of the 14th amendment. Tenny must not realize that you only sue in judicial proceedings, as judicial proceedings are actions carried out in a court of law. I still want to know how one sues without having applicable law in place. Oh yes, that's why he's turning in his guns, since he can only have single shot revolvers and muskets, and cannons. His teachers are shaking their heads in embarrassment. Hint -all we have, according to you are 21st century activist court rulings - you aren't even in the right century. And according to you, we then use activist court rulings from the 18th century, 19th century, 20th century, (and as you ignorantly left out), 21st century. You do realize the SSM rulings were THIS century, Tenny?

I am trying to understand your post in the context of the law and the Constitution, but it defies both.

 

[Tennyson]

Tenny, as several of us have informed you, on numerous occasions, we will not answer your questions until you answer ours. You've never answered a single one. We may make exceptions, but only to further demonstrate ignorance, such as you not realizing the century court ruling were made (after all, one of them was in 2015, and that was SOOOOO long ago). Additionally, you'll notice many aren't going to answer you, because you don't specifically address anyone, so people aren't going to wade through your voluminous BS where you continually regurgitate the same misinformation regarding several people's comments. Model yourself off of Emily, Seriously, myself, Clayton, etc, who call you out/address you. Otherwise, you just further demonstrate that you are nothing but the shallowest of internet trolls.

You have yet to ask a legitimate question to be answered. This is a very unbecoming method you have employed to avoid defending your posts when pressed.

 

[Sneekin]

Dear Tennyson pure logic would tell us
that if states establish a religion or religious bias that
A. all their citizens agree to, nobody is going to contest it as religious imposition, so it will not be found
unconstitutional since nobody will complain or petition/sue for it to change
B. a number of their citizens DON'T believe in or agree with, then that WILL be contested as unconstitutional

(so it's the issue of CONSENT that makes it constitutional or unconstitutional)

If there isn't consent and there is a contested bias in the law due to clashing beliefs, this will cause
C. an argument whether it requires a 'consensus' of citizens to find it unconstitutional, 'majority rule' to determine if it is is or is not, or the FEDERAL GOVT to step in and decide if citizens are being deprived unconstitutionally

We will have the exact situation we have now with
1. people disagreeing about right to life, prochoice, and federal laws made by legislators or rulings by courts
2. similar arguments over the recognition of homosexual or transgender identity and marriage rights etc.

Tennyson we in fact DO have conflicts of religion going on with the govt and Constitution itself.
Some interpret and believe the history as govt founders DID establish an agreed process in creating the Constitution, where the conventions WERE presided over with prayer to God for wisdom to guide the process.

So this is in practice, an expression of the faith in the democratic process of establishing truth by "witnesses" in defense of one side or another, which is also reflected in the Bible, in Matthew 18:15-20 where trespasses are being addressed as a specific type of conflict, but this "due process of law" can apply to any grievance or issue.

If we BELIEVE in this process, and use Constitutional laws to express and enforce it, that is like a political religion because it involves govt processes.

I use these in GENERAL terms and contexts to mean PEOPLE (not just govt) redressing grievances.
So to me it is a spiritual process between people on a personal level first, then it extends to relationships between people and groups, and then the govt process reflects that collectively on a public or global scale.

I would say we DO have different denominations of Constitutionalism going on.

Yes you did, TROLL. You claimed it only applied to Protestant religions. For goodness sake, if you expand this response, you'll see where you were QUOTED saying it prohibited Protestants. Why don't you stop. The topic is Gay Marriage is not a constitutional right, not the entire constitution and the entire bill of rights. And stop boring us with your "random twentieth century activist court rulings". The only time you have used this phrase is when the SCOTUS ruling is something you disagree with. Does that mean you are in full agreement, and as a strict constructionist (to explain to someone as illiterate as yourself) that you refer to a particular legal philosopy of judicial interpretation that limits or restricts judicial interpretation. Then literally, you are, under the second amendment, bound to use weapons of those days only, so turn in everything but your one-shot weapons and cannons. Antonin and Thomas both changed from strict constructionist to "20th century activist judges" when it comes to one of their pet projects, the same as you.

Again, the topic is the Bill of Rights. Why don't you copy and paste the preamble to the Bill of Rights and the first sentence of the Bill of Rights and explain who it applies to.

I did not claim that the US could have a national religion.

The states had state supported religions long after the Constitution was ratified. Why? Because it does not violate the Constitution.

This is about the Constitution and Bill of Rights, not random twentieth century activist court rulings. The first requires intellect and education, the second does not. I prefer the first.

All you have are twentieth century activist court rulings. You have never once relied on the language, the debates, or the intent of any part of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

Your attempt to paint me in a corner regarding the Second Amendment is impotent. I never made that statement nor did I allude to that statement.

Emily,

The states had state sponsored religions into the eighteenth century. No religion was imposed on anyone. The advantage was receiving tax money from the state. All the states had different religions. There was no constitutional basis against what the states were doing. It is the same as the Fifteenth Amendment, the Nineteenth Amendment, and the reconstruction Congress' approving the state's anti-miscegenation laws. If the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment meant what activist courts have created that they meant, there would be no reason for the amendments because they could have just sued. They did not sue because the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection and due process clauses were only applicable for judicial proceedings.

Syriusly, get a load of this - there's no need for the 14th amendment, because people could have just sued using the principals of the 14th amendment. Tenny must not realize that you only sue in judicial proceedings, as judicial proceedings are actions carried out in a court of law. I still want to know how one sues without having applicable law in place. Oh yes, that's why he's turning in his guns, since he can only have single shot revolvers and muskets, and cannons. His teachers are shaking their heads in embarrassment. Hint -all we have, according to you are 21st century activist court rulings - you aren't even in the right century. And according to you, we then use activist court rulings from the 18th century, 19th century, 20th century, (and as you ignorantly left out), 21st century. You do realize the SSM rulings were THIS century, Tenny?

I am trying to understand your post in the context of the law and the Constitution, but it defies both.

Not a very nice thing to say to emily. One has to assume english isn't your first language, and whoever taught you english had no grasp themselves on the language. Perhaps you were raised learning pig latin.

 

[Sneekin]

Tenny, as several of us have informed you, on numerous occasions, we will not answer your questions until you answer ours. You've never answered a single one. We may make exceptions, but only to further demonstrate ignorance, such as you not realizing the century court ruling were made (after all, one of them was in 2015, and that was SOOOOO long ago). Additionally, you'll notice many aren't going to answer you, because you don't specifically address anyone, so people aren't going to wade through your voluminous BS where you continually regurgitate the same misinformation regarding several people's comments. Model yourself off of Emily, Seriously, myself, Clayton, etc, who call you out/address you. Otherwise, you just further demonstrate that you are nothing but the shallowest of internet trolls.

You have yet to ask a legitimate question to be answered. This is a very unbecoming method you have employed to avoid defending your posts when pressed.

7 people so far have asked you questions, including myself. This is the same non-answer you always give. You've been told before - we don't answer your questions until you answer ares. If it requires you going through 107 pages, then I suggest you start now, TROLL.

 

[Sneekin]

Dear Tennyson pure logic would tell us
that if states establish a religion or religious bias that
A. all their citizens agree to, nobody is going to contest it as religious imposition, so it will not be found
unconstitutional since nobody will complain or petition/sue for it to change
B. a number of their citizens DON'T believe in or agree with, then that WILL be contested as unconstitutional

(so it's the issue of CONSENT that makes it constitutional or unconstitutional)

If there isn't consent and there is a contested bias in the law due to clashing beliefs, this will cause
C. an argument whether it requires a 'consensus' of citizens to find it unconstitutional, 'majority rule' to determine if it is is or is not, or the FEDERAL GOVT to step in and decide if citizens are being deprived unconstitutionally

We will have the exact situation we have now with
1. people disagreeing about right to life, prochoice, and federal laws made by legislators or rulings by courts
2. similar arguments over the recognition of homosexual or transgender identity and marriage rights etc.

Tennyson we in fact DO have conflicts of religion going on with the govt and Constitution itself.
Some interpret and believe the history as govt founders DID establish an agreed process in creating the Constitution, where the conventions WERE presided over with prayer to God for wisdom to guide the process.

So this is in practice, an expression of the faith in the democratic process of establishing truth by "witnesses" in defense of one side or another, which is also reflected in the Bible, in Matthew 18:15-20 where trespasses are being addressed as a specific type of conflict, but this "due process of law" can apply to any grievance or issue.

If we BELIEVE in this process, and use Constitutional laws to express and enforce it, that is like a political religion because it involves govt processes.

I use these in GENERAL terms and contexts to mean PEOPLE (not just govt) redressing grievances.
So to me it is a spiritual process between people on a personal level first, then it extends to relationships between people and groups, and then the govt process reflects that collectively on a public or global scale.

I would say we DO have different denominations of Constitutionalism going on.

Yes you did, TROLL. You claimed it only applied to Protestant religions. For goodness sake, if you expand this response, you'll see where you were QUOTED saying it prohibited Protestants. Why don't you stop. The topic is Gay Marriage is not a constitutional right, not the entire constitution and the entire bill of rights. And stop boring us with your "random twentieth century activist court rulings". The only time you have used this phrase is when the SCOTUS ruling is something you disagree with. Does that mean you are in full agreement, and as a strict constructionist (to explain to someone as illiterate as yourself) that you refer to a particular legal philosopy of judicial interpretation that limits or restricts judicial interpretation. Then literally, you are, under the second amendment, bound to use weapons of those days only, so turn in everything but your one-shot weapons and cannons. Antonin and Thomas both changed from strict constructionist to "20th century activist judges" when it comes to one of their pet projects, the same as you.

Again, the topic is the Bill of Rights. Why don't you copy and paste the preamble to the Bill of Rights and the first sentence of the Bill of Rights and explain who it applies to.

I did not claim that the US could have a national religion.

The states had state supported religions long after the Constitution was ratified. Why? Because it does not violate the Constitution.

This is about the Constitution and Bill of Rights, not random twentieth century activist court rulings. The first requires intellect and education, the second does not. I prefer the first.

All you have are twentieth century activist court rulings. You have never once relied on the language, the debates, or the intent of any part of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

Your attempt to paint me in a corner regarding the Second Amendment is impotent. I never made that statement nor did I allude to that statement.

Emily,

The states had state sponsored religions into the eighteenth century. No religion was imposed on anyone. The advantage was receiving tax money from the state. All the states had different religions. There was no constitutional basis against what the states were doing. It is the same as the Fifteenth Amendment, the Nineteenth Amendment, and the reconstruction Congress' approving the state's anti-miscegenation laws. If the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment meant what activist courts have created that they meant, there would be no reason for the amendments because they could have just sued. They did not sue because the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection and due process clauses were only applicable for judicial proceedings.

Syriusly, get a load of this - there's no need for the 14th amendment, because people could have just sued using the principals of the 14th amendment. Tenny must not realize that you only sue in judicial proceedings, as judicial proceedings are actions carried out in a court of law. I still want to know how one sues without having applicable law in place. Oh yes, that's why he's turning in his guns, since he can only have single shot revolvers and muskets, and cannons. His teachers are shaking their heads in embarrassment. Hint -all we have, according to you are 21st century activist court rulings - you aren't even in the right century. And according to you, we then use activist court rulings from the 18th century, 19th century, 20th century, (and as you ignorantly left out), 21st century. You do realize the SSM rulings were THIS century, Tenny?

I am trying to understand your post in the context of the law and the Constitution, but it defies both.

If you don't understand english, admit it. You've already demonstrated your ignorance of the law and the US Constitution. Figured out yet that the Bill of rights are the start of the US Constitution, or are you still in some kind of drug or alcohol stupor that prevents you from understanding?" Answer questions - and you'll get answers. Keep ignoring us, and you'll get nothing. I see you've failed to grasp the concept that judicial proceedings occur in courts, and that for someone to sue citing the 14th amendment, the 14th amendment must be in place. Thanks for proving ignorance is bliss. We can see you giggling inanely behind your keyboard and monitor. To dumb this down to your level - You cannot sue someone for establishing a federal religion if it was not already determined to violate the first amendment - that is to say, slow minded one, if there was no first amendment, you cannot sue. We are dazzled by your stupidity (as opposed to just ignorance of the constitution). Dropped on your head?

 

[Sneekin]

All you have are twentieth century activist court rulings. You have never once relied on the language, the debates, or the intent of any part of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights..

Since the current court rulings that are in effect and are binding rely upon the language and intent of the Constitution(you do know that the Bill of Rights are part of the Constitution- right? Saying the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is like saying you were relying upon the Old Testament- and the 10 Commandments. )

The Bill of Rights are part of the Constitution? When did that happen? That was not the intent. Why was the first draft of the Bill of Rights rejected from being inserted into the body of the articles of the Constitution that the respective rights applied?

Troll - The Bill of Rights is the collective name for the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. This should have been taught to you by sixth grade if not sooner. Did you not even complete the sixth grade?

You seem to have forgotten to address this:

Why was the first draft of the Bill of Rights rejected from being inserted into the body of the articles of the Constitution that the respective rights applied? This would have made the Bill of Rights part of the Constitution and subject to the Article V amendment process. The idea of making the Bill of Rights part of the Constitution as were the Declaration of Rights in the Virginia constitution was summarily rejected.

Troll boy, wipe the drool off your chin, and answer questions. The bill of rights is inserted into the constitution. This isn't history class, we aren't answering the why it is or isn't, as you lack the courtesy and intelligence to answer those put to you. Then again, you don't even know what century this is.......maybe you should ask your primary school teachers. I realize it's hard for someone as mentally challenged as yourself, but try and stick to the topic, which isn't the bill or rights being incorporated into the constitution, it's as to whether or not gay marriage a constitutional right.

I'm shocked and amazed that you are so ignorant that you think we can vote away freedoms or rights for a group of people, whether by Race, Sexual Orientation, Religion, National Origin (Tenny, note that these are unique groups of people only, not meant to imply they have preferential treatment or classes). You see, fool, that would again violate the US Constitution. All men are created equal, not just old white men.

Read the 34 page ruling of Obergefell v. Hodges if you want that answered. The ruling clearly stated that the basic Constitutional notions of freedom mean“same-sex couples may exercise the right to marry.”.

 

[Tennyson]

Dear Tennyson pure logic would tell us
that if states establish a religion or religious bias that
A. all their citizens agree to, nobody is going to contest it as religious imposition, so it will not be found
unconstitutional since nobody will complain or petition/sue for it to change
B. a number of their citizens DON'T believe in or agree with, then that WILL be contested as unconstitutional

(so it's the issue of CONSENT that makes it constitutional or unconstitutional)

If there isn't consent and there is a contested bias in the law due to clashing beliefs, this will cause
C. an argument whether it requires a 'consensus' of citizens to find it unconstitutional, 'majority rule' to determine if it is is or is not, or the FEDERAL GOVT to step in and decide if citizens are being deprived unconstitutionally

We will have the exact situation we have now with
1. people disagreeing about right to life, prochoice, and federal laws made by legislators or rulings by courts
2. similar arguments over the recognition of homosexual or transgender identity and marriage rights etc.

Tennyson we in fact DO have conflicts of religion going on with the govt and Constitution itself.
Some interpret and believe the history as govt founders DID establish an agreed process in creating the Constitution, where the conventions WERE presided over with prayer to God for wisdom to guide the process.

So this is in practice, an expression of the faith in the democratic process of establishing truth by "witnesses" in defense of one side or another, which is also reflected in the Bible, in Matthew 18:15-20 where trespasses are being addressed as a specific type of conflict, but this "due process of law" can apply to any grievance or issue.

If we BELIEVE in this process, and use Constitutional laws to express and enforce it, that is like a political religion because it involves govt processes.

I use these in GENERAL terms and contexts to mean PEOPLE (not just govt) redressing grievances.
So to me it is a spiritual process between people on a personal level first, then it extends to relationships between people and groups, and then the govt process reflects that collectively on a public or global scale.

I would say we DO have different denominations of Constitutionalism going on.

Again, the topic is the Bill of Rights. Why don't you copy and paste the preamble to the Bill of Rights and the first sentence of the Bill of Rights and explain who it applies to.

I did not claim that the US could have a national religion.

The states had state supported religions long after the Constitution was ratified. Why? Because it does not violate the Constitution.

This is about the Constitution and Bill of Rights, not random twentieth century activist court rulings. The first requires intellect and education, the second does not. I prefer the first.

All you have are twentieth century activist court rulings. You have never once relied on the language, the debates, or the intent of any part of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

Your attempt to paint me in a corner regarding the Second Amendment is impotent. I never made that statement nor did I allude to that statement.

Emily,

The states had state sponsored religions into the eighteenth century. No religion was imposed on anyone. The advantage was receiving tax money from the state. All the states had different religions. There was no constitutional basis against what the states were doing. It is the same as the Fifteenth Amendment, the Nineteenth Amendment, and the reconstruction Congress' approving the state's anti-miscegenation laws. If the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment meant what activist courts have created that they meant, there would be no reason for the amendments because they could have just sued. They did not sue because the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection and due process clauses were only applicable for judicial proceedings.

Syriusly, get a load of this - there's no need for the 14th amendment, because people could have just sued using the principals of the 14th amendment. Tenny must not realize that you only sue in judicial proceedings, as judicial proceedings are actions carried out in a court of law. I still want to know how one sues without having applicable law in place. Oh yes, that's why he's turning in his guns, since he can only have single shot revolvers and muskets, and cannons. His teachers are shaking their heads in embarrassment. Hint -all we have, according to you are 21st century activist court rulings - you aren't even in the right century. And according to you, we then use activist court rulings from the 18th century, 19th century, 20th century, (and as you ignorantly left out), 21st century. You do realize the SSM rulings were THIS century, Tenny?

I am trying to understand your post in the context of the law and the Constitution, but it defies both.

Not a very nice thing to say to emily. One has to assume english isn't your first language, and whoever taught you english had no grasp themselves on the language. Perhaps you were raised learning pig latin.

That was addressed to you and you know that it was.

 

[Tennyson]

Tenny, as several of us have informed you, on numerous occasions, we will not answer your questions until you answer ours. You've never answered a single one. We may make exceptions, but only to further demonstrate ignorance, such as you not realizing the century court ruling were made (after all, one of them was in 2015, and that was SOOOOO long ago). Additionally, you'll notice many aren't going to answer you, because you don't specifically address anyone, so people aren't going to wade through your voluminous BS where you continually regurgitate the same misinformation regarding several people's comments. Model yourself off of Emily, Seriously, myself, Clayton, etc, who call you out/address you. Otherwise, you just further demonstrate that you are nothing but the shallowest of internet trolls.

You have yet to ask a legitimate question to be answered. This is a very unbecoming method you have employed to avoid defending your posts when pressed.

7 people so far have asked you questions, including myself. This is the same non-answer you always give. You've been told before - we don't answer your questions until you answer ares. If it requires you going through 107 pages, then I suggest you start now, TROLL.

You have yet to ask a legitimate question to be answered. This is a very unbecoming method you have employed to avoid defending your posts when pressed. You are made claims that you have failed to substantiate with any historical evidence.

 

[Tennyson]

Dear Tennyson pure logic would tell us
that if states establish a religion or religious bias that
A. all their citizens agree to, nobody is going to contest it as religious imposition, so it will not be found
unconstitutional since nobody will complain or petition/sue for it to change
B. a number of their citizens DON'T believe in or agree with, then that WILL be contested as unconstitutional

(so it's the issue of CONSENT that makes it constitutional or unconstitutional)

If there isn't consent and there is a contested bias in the law due to clashing beliefs, this will cause
C. an argument whether it requires a 'consensus' of citizens to find it unconstitutional, 'majority rule' to determine if it is is or is not, or the FEDERAL GOVT to step in and decide if citizens are being deprived unconstitutionally

We will have the exact situation we have now with
1. people disagreeing about right to life, prochoice, and federal laws made by legislators or rulings by courts
2. similar arguments over the recognition of homosexual or transgender identity and marriage rights etc.

Tennyson we in fact DO have conflicts of religion going on with the govt and Constitution itself.
Some interpret and believe the history as govt founders DID establish an agreed process in creating the Constitution, where the conventions WERE presided over with prayer to God for wisdom to guide the process.

So this is in practice, an expression of the faith in the democratic process of establishing truth by "witnesses" in defense of one side or another, which is also reflected in the Bible, in Matthew 18:15-20 where trespasses are being addressed as a specific type of conflict, but this "due process of law" can apply to any grievance or issue.

If we BELIEVE in this process, and use Constitutional laws to express and enforce it, that is like a political religion because it involves govt processes.

I use these in GENERAL terms and contexts to mean PEOPLE (not just govt) redressing grievances.
So to me it is a spiritual process between people on a personal level first, then it extends to relationships between people and groups, and then the govt process reflects that collectively on a public or global scale.

I would say we DO have different denominations of Constitutionalism going on.

Again, the topic is the Bill of Rights. Why don't you copy and paste the preamble to the Bill of Rights and the first sentence of the Bill of Rights and explain who it applies to.

I did not claim that the US could have a national religion.

The states had state supported religions long after the Constitution was ratified. Why? Because it does not violate the Constitution.

This is about the Constitution and Bill of Rights, not random twentieth century activist court rulings. The first requires intellect and education, the second does not. I prefer the first.

All you have are twentieth century activist court rulings. You have never once relied on the language, the debates, or the intent of any part of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

Your attempt to paint me in a corner regarding the Second Amendment is impotent. I never made that statement nor did I allude to that statement.

Emily,

The states had state sponsored religions into the eighteenth century. No religion was imposed on anyone. The advantage was receiving tax money from the state. All the states had different religions. There was no constitutional basis against what the states were doing. It is the same as the Fifteenth Amendment, the Nineteenth Amendment, and the reconstruction Congress' approving the state's anti-miscegenation laws. If the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment meant what activist courts have created that they meant, there would be no reason for the amendments because they could have just sued. They did not sue because the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection and due process clauses were only applicable for judicial proceedings.

Syriusly, get a load of this - there's no need for the 14th amendment, because people could have just sued using the principals of the 14th amendment. Tenny must not realize that you only sue in judicial proceedings, as judicial proceedings are actions carried out in a court of law. I still want to know how one sues without having applicable law in place. Oh yes, that's why he's turning in his guns, since he can only have single shot revolvers and muskets, and cannons. His teachers are shaking their heads in embarrassment. Hint -all we have, according to you are 21st century activist court rulings - you aren't even in the right century. And according to you, we then use activist court rulings from the 18th century, 19th century, 20th century, (and as you ignorantly left out), 21st century. You do realize the SSM rulings were THIS century, Tenny?

I am trying to understand your post in the context of the law and the Constitution, but it defies both.

If you don't understand english, admit it. You've already demonstrated your ignorance of the law and the US Constitution. Figured out yet that the Bill of rights are the start of the US Constitution, or are you still in some kind of drug or alcohol stupor that prevents you from understanding?" Answer questions - and you'll get answers. Keep ignoring us, and you'll get nothing. I see you've failed to grasp the concept that judicial proceedings occur in courts, and that for someone to sue citing the 14th amendment, the 14th amendment must be in place. Thanks for proving ignorance is bliss. We can see you giggling inanely behind your keyboard and monitor. To dumb this down to your level - You cannot sue someone for establishing a federal religion if it was not already determined to violate the first amendment - that is to say, slow minded one, if there was no first amendment, you cannot sue. We are dazzled by your stupidity (as opposed to just ignorance of the constitution). Dropped on your head?

I am trying to understand your post in the context of the law and the Constitution, but it defies both. There is nothing in this post that I can assign to any legitimate legal or constitutional concept.

 

[Tennyson]

All you have are twentieth century activist court rulings. You have never once relied on the language, the debates, or the intent of any part of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights..

Since the current court rulings that are in effect and are binding rely upon the language and intent of the Constitution(you do know that the Bill of Rights are part of the Constitution- right? Saying the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is like saying you were relying upon the Old Testament- and the 10 Commandments. )

The Bill of Rights are part of the Constitution? When did that happen? That was not the intent. Why was the first draft of the Bill of Rights rejected from being inserted into the body of the articles of the Constitution that the respective rights applied?

Troll - The Bill of Rights is the collective name for the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. This should have been taught to you by sixth grade if not sooner. Did you not even complete the sixth grade?

You seem to have forgotten to address this:

Why was the first draft of the Bill of Rights rejected from being inserted into the body of the articles of the Constitution that the respective rights applied? This would have made the Bill of Rights part of the Constitution and subject to the Article V amendment process. The idea of making the Bill of Rights part of the Constitution as were the Declaration of Rights in the Virginia constitution was summarily rejected.

Troll boy, wipe the drool off your chin, and answer questions. The bill of rights is inserted into the constitution. This isn't history class, we aren't answering the why it is or isn't, as you lack the courtesy and intelligence to answer those put to you. Then again, you don't even know what century this is.......maybe you should ask your primary school teachers. I realize it's hard for someone as mentally challenged as yourself, but try and stick to the topic, which isn't the bill or rights being incorporated into the constitution, it's as to whether or not gay marriage a constitutional right.

I'm shocked and amazed that you are so ignorant that you think we can vote away freedoms or rights for a group of people, whether by Race, Sexual Orientation, Religion, National Origin (Tenny, note that these are unique groups of people only, not meant to imply they have preferential treatment or classes). You see, fool, that would again violate the US Constitution. All men are created equal, not just old white men.

Read the 34 page ruling of Obergefell v. Hodges if you want that answered. The ruling clearly stated that the basic Constitutional notions of freedom mean“same-sex couples may exercise the right to marry.”.

If the founders wanted to insert the Bill of Rights into the Constitution they probably would have written the Bill of Rights into certain articles by deleting parts of the article, section, or paragraph and inserting the amendment in their place.

 

[emilynghiem]

All you have are twentieth century activist court rulings. You have never once relied on the language, the debates, or the intent of any part of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights..

Since the current court rulings that are in effect and are binding rely upon the language and intent of the Constitution(you do know that the Bill of Rights are part of the Constitution- right? Saying the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is like saying you were relying upon the Old Testament- and the 10 Commandments. )

The Bill of Rights are part of the Constitution? When did that happen? That was not the intent. Why was the first draft of the Bill of Rights rejected from being inserted into the body of the articles of the Constitution that the respective rights applied?

Troll - The Bill of Rights is the collective name for the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. This should have been taught to you by sixth grade if not sooner. Did you not even complete the sixth grade?

You seem to have forgotten to address this:

Why was the first draft of the Bill of Rights rejected from being inserted into the body of the articles of the Constitution that the respective rights applied? This would have made the Bill of Rights part of the Constitution and subject to the Article V amendment process. The idea of making the Bill of Rights part of the Constitution as were the Declaration of Rights in the Virginia constitution was summarily rejected.

Troll boy, wipe the drool off your chin, and answer questions. The bill of rights is inserted into the constitution. This isn't history class, we aren't answering the why it is or isn't, as you lack the courtesy and intelligence to answer those put to you. Then again, you don't even know what century this is.......maybe you should ask your primary school teachers. I realize it's hard for someone as mentally challenged as yourself, but try and stick to the topic, which isn't the bill or rights being incorporated into the constitution, it's as to whether or not gay marriage a constitutional right.

I'm shocked and amazed that you are so ignorant that you think we can vote away freedoms or rights for a group of people, whether by Race, Sexual Orientation, Religion, National Origin (Tenny, note that these are unique groups of people only, not meant to imply they have preferential treatment or classes). You see, fool, that would again violate the US Constitution. All men are created equal, not just old white men.

Read the 34 page ruling of Obergefell v. Hodges if you want that answered. The ruling clearly stated that the basic Constitutional notions of freedom mean“same-sex couples may exercise the right to marry.”.

Dear Sneekin and Tennyson
This business of courts deciding right to marriage is where we see a split in political creed and beliefs.
1. One is the Statist belief that judges can rule in cases of beliefs, including belief in right to marriage, right to life, right to health care, etc.
2. One is this is unconstitutional on 3-4 grounds: Amendment 1, 10, 14 and separation of powers that belongs to legislative authority

The Statist belief 1 can be seen as equal to the Constitutional belief 2 for people to choose freely and to exercise as long as it doesn't infringe on the equal rights of other beliefs; and as such, then neither side can impose on the other without violating amendment 1 both sides invoke to protect their beliefs.

Thus they either tie, and govt. cannot take sides without discrimination against the equal protection of the other belief. Or the parties agree how to resolve this consensually and not violate or coerce exclude or discriminate against each other's equal beliefs and protection of laws. But if govt gets used to impose one political belief on the other, we already know from experience and from our own beliefs, this is not constitutional but abuse of authority; either the nonstatist IS abusing govt to *establish* their political belief against statism, or the free choice person IS violating their OWN defense on grounds of freedom from someone else's religion. These are BOTH contradictory and thus they both fail, and both sides know this and complain. So clearly we aren't going to settle issues of belief or creed this way, and I suggest mediation, separation of policy, and consensus on alternatives to avoid the bullying coercion route.

Now, refute this statement and show me how this isn't fair to both sides .

 

[Syriusly]

Since the current court rulings that are in effect and are binding rely upon the language and intent of the Constitution(you do know that the Bill of Rights are part of the Constitution- right? Saying the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is like saying you were relying upon the Old Testament- and the 10 Commandments. )

The Bill of Rights are part of the Constitution? When did that happen? That was not the intent. Why was the first draft of the Bill of Rights rejected from being inserted into the body of the articles of the Constitution that the respective rights applied?

Troll - The Bill of Rights is the collective name for the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. This should have been taught to you by sixth grade if not sooner. Did you not even complete the sixth grade?

You seem to have forgotten to address this:

Why was the first draft of the Bill of Rights rejected from being inserted into the body of the articles of the Constitution that the respective rights applied? This would have made the Bill of Rights part of the Constitution and subject to the Article V amendment process. The idea of making the Bill of Rights part of the Constitution as were the Declaration of Rights in the Virginia constitution was summarily rejected.

Troll boy, wipe the drool off your chin, and answer questions. The bill of rights is inserted into the constitution. This isn't history class, we aren't answering the why it is or isn't, as you lack the courtesy and intelligence to answer those put to you. Then again, you don't even know what century this is.......maybe you should ask your primary school teachers. I realize it's hard for someone as mentally challenged as yourself, but try and stick to the topic, which isn't the bill or rights being incorporated into the constitution, it's as to whether or not gay marriage a constitutional right.

I'm shocked and amazed that you are so ignorant that you think we can vote away freedoms or rights for a group of people, whether by Race, Sexual Orientation, Religion, National Origin (Tenny, note that these are unique groups of people only, not meant to imply they have preferential treatment or classes). You see, fool, that would again violate the US Constitution. All men are created equal, not just old white men.

Read the 34 page ruling of Obergefell v. Hodges if you want that answered. The ruling clearly stated that the basic Constitutional notions of freedom mean“same-sex couples may exercise the right to marry.”.

If the founders wanted to insert the Bill of Rights into the Constitution they probably would have written the Bill of Rights into certain articles by deleting parts of the article, section, or paragraph and inserting the amendment in their place.

The Bill of Rights are part of the Constitution.

Every amendment to the Constitution is part of the Constitution.

 

[Sneekin]

Dear Tennyson pure logic would tell us
that if states establish a religion or religious bias that
A. all their citizens agree to, nobody is going to contest it as religious imposition, so it will not be found
unconstitutional since nobody will complain or petition/sue for it to change
B. a number of their citizens DON'T believe in or agree with, then that WILL be contested as unconstitutional

(so it's the issue of CONSENT that makes it constitutional or unconstitutional)

If there isn't consent and there is a contested bias in the law due to clashing beliefs, this will cause
C. an argument whether it requires a 'consensus' of citizens to find it unconstitutional, 'majority rule' to determine if it is is or is not, or the FEDERAL GOVT to step in and decide if citizens are being deprived unconstitutionally

We will have the exact situation we have now with
1. people disagreeing about right to life, prochoice, and federal laws made by legislators or rulings by courts
2. similar arguments over the recognition of homosexual or transgender identity and marriage rights etc.

Tennyson we in fact DO have conflicts of religion going on with the govt and Constitution itself.
Some interpret and believe the history as govt founders DID establish an agreed process in creating the Constitution, where the conventions WERE presided over with prayer to God for wisdom to guide the process.

So this is in practice, an expression of the faith in the democratic process of establishing truth by "witnesses" in defense of one side or another, which is also reflected in the Bible, in Matthew 18:15-20 where trespasses are being addressed as a specific type of conflict, but this "due process of law" can apply to any grievance or issue.

If we BELIEVE in this process, and use Constitutional laws to express and enforce it, that is like a political religion because it involves govt processes.

I use these in GENERAL terms and contexts to mean PEOPLE (not just govt) redressing grievances.
So to me it is a spiritual process between people on a personal level first, then it extends to relationships between people and groups, and then the govt process reflects that collectively on a public or global scale.

I would say we DO have different denominations of Constitutionalism going on.

Emily,

The states had state sponsored religions into the eighteenth century. No religion was imposed on anyone. The advantage was receiving tax money from the state. All the states had different religions. There was no constitutional basis against what the states were doing. It is the same as the Fifteenth Amendment, the Nineteenth Amendment, and the reconstruction Congress' approving the state's anti-miscegenation laws. If the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment meant what activist courts have created that they meant, there would be no reason for the amendments because they could have just sued. They did not sue because the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection and due process clauses were only applicable for judicial proceedings.

Syriusly, get a load of this - there's no need for the 14th amendment, because people could have just sued using the principals of the 14th amendment. Tenny must not realize that you only sue in judicial proceedings, as judicial proceedings are actions carried out in a court of law. I still want to know how one sues without having applicable law in place. Oh yes, that's why he's turning in his guns, since he can only have single shot revolvers and muskets, and cannons. His teachers are shaking their heads in embarrassment. Hint -all we have, according to you are 21st century activist court rulings - you aren't even in the right century. And according to you, we then use activist court rulings from the 18th century, 19th century, 20th century, (and as you ignorantly left out), 21st century. You do realize the SSM rulings were THIS century, Tenny?

I am trying to understand your post in the context of the law and the Constitution, but it defies both.

Not a very nice thing to say to emily. One has to assume english isn't your first language, and whoever taught you english had no grasp themselves on the language. Perhaps you were raised learning pig latin.

That was addressed to you and you know that it was.

No I don't know that. I'm not the self effacing twit that you are. So your questions will not get answered.

 

[Sneekin]

The Bill of Rights are part of the Constitution? When did that happen? That was not the intent. Why was the first draft of the Bill of Rights rejected from being inserted into the body of the articles of the Constitution that the respective rights applied?

Troll - The Bill of Rights is the collective name for the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. This should have been taught to you by sixth grade if not sooner. Did you not even complete the sixth grade?

You seem to have forgotten to address this:

Why was the first draft of the Bill of Rights rejected from being inserted into the body of the articles of the Constitution that the respective rights applied? This would have made the Bill of Rights part of the Constitution and subject to the Article V amendment process. The idea of making the Bill of Rights part of the Constitution as were the Declaration of Rights in the Virginia constitution was summarily rejected.

Troll boy, wipe the drool off your chin, and answer questions. The bill of rights is inserted into the constitution. This isn't history class, we aren't answering the why it is or isn't, as you lack the courtesy and intelligence to answer those put to you. Then again, you don't even know what century this is.......maybe you should ask your primary school teachers. I realize it's hard for someone as mentally challenged as yourself, but try and stick to the topic, which isn't the bill or rights being incorporated into the constitution, it's as to whether or not gay marriage a constitutional right.

I'm shocked and amazed that you are so ignorant that you think we can vote away freedoms or rights for a group of people, whether by Race, Sexual Orientation, Religion, National Origin (Tenny, note that these are unique groups of people only, not meant to imply they have preferential treatment or classes). You see, fool, that would again violate the US Constitution. All men are created equal, not just old white men.

Read the 34 page ruling of Obergefell v. Hodges if you want that answered. The ruling clearly stated that the basic Constitutional notions of freedom mean“same-sex couples may exercise the right to marry.”.

If the founders wanted to insert the Bill of Rights into the Constitution they probably would have written the Bill of Rights into certain articles by deleting parts of the article, section, or paragraph and inserting the amendment in their place.

The Bill of Rights are part of the Constitution.

Every amendment to the Constitution is part of the Constitution.

To all but Tennyson, apparently.