Gay marriage is not a constitutional right

[WinterBorn]

Real churches marry gay people all of the time.

Not Bible believing churches....501C3 churches do..... so they can maintain their tax free status....consider yourself "schooled".....

Real Churches. Mainstream churches. Churches that preach the love of Jesus, not the fire and brimstone of the First Testament. Christians who consider those who would call themselves "real Christians" to be rabid fundamentalist cultists who practice something that in no way resembles Christianity.

n

Does the love of Jesus also encompass pedophilia as well as homosexuality? Spare me your Aleister Crowley bullshit of "Do as thou wilst"

Pedophilia and homosexuality are not comparable.

With one you have two adults who love each other. With the other you have a child being abused.

Go **** yourself....spare me the "friend of the queer" speech.

Just the truth. Nice "Christian" response. You just use select bible passages to justify your hate.

 

[ABikerSailor]

But WinterBorn..................didn't you know that's how the Christians get you to join them? They scare the hell out of you with cherry picked verses, and then cherry pick more to get you to follow their dogma.

Seen it many times.

 

[WinterBorn]

But WinterBorn..................didn't you know that's how the Christians get you to join them? They scare the hell out of you with cherry picked verses, and then cherry pick more to get you to follow their dogma.

Seen it many times.

Yeah, you are right. They preach about the God of Love, and demand you fear him.

 

[Dale Smith]

Not Bible believing churches....501C3 churches do..... so they can maintain their tax free status....consider yourself "schooled".....

Real Churches. Mainstream churches. Churches that preach the love of Jesus, not the fire and brimstone of the First Testament. Christians who consider those who would call themselves "real Christians" to be rabid fundamentalist cultists who practice something that in no way resembles Christianity.

n

Does the love of Jesus also encompass pedophilia as well as homosexuality? Spare me your Aleister Crowley bullshit of "Do as thou wilst"

Pedophilia and homosexuality are not comparable.

With one you have two adults who love each other. With the other you have a child being abused.

Go **** yourself....spare me the "friend of the queer" speech.

Just the truth. Nice "Christian" response. You just use select bible passages to justify your hate.

No, I don't "hate" but I am tired of the LGBT and GLSEN agenda where they are pushing acceptance for the queer agenda in our public schools starting at the grade school level and anyone that objects can expect to be ostracized...it's not like I give a shit. I will not be silenced nor will I be bullied into accepting it...get it now?

 

[Dale Smith]

But WinterBorn..................didn't you know that's how the Christians get you to join them? They scare the hell out of you with cherry picked verses, and then cherry pick more to get you to follow their dogma.

Seen it many times.

Yeah, accept faggotry or you don't have faith in a higher power...I "get it". I don't give a flying **** what consenting adults do in the privacy of their home...but keep it "private" and stop telling people that they must accept their way of life and flaunting it in the face of people. Get your freak on but don't expect everyone to approve of it....get it now?

 

[WinterBorn]

Real Churches. Mainstream churches. Churches that preach the love of Jesus, not the fire and brimstone of the First Testament. Christians who consider those who would call themselves "real Christians" to be rabid fundamentalist cultists who practice something that in no way resembles Christianity.

n

Does the love of Jesus also encompass pedophilia as well as homosexuality? Spare me your Aleister Crowley bullshit of "Do as thou wilst"

Pedophilia and homosexuality are not comparable.

With one you have two adults who love each other. With the other you have a child being abused.

Go **** yourself....spare me the "friend of the queer" speech.

Just the truth. Nice "Christian" response. You just use select bible passages to justify your hate.

No, I don't "hate" but I am tired of the LGBT and GLSEN agenda where they are pushing acceptance for the queer agenda in our public schools starting at the grade school level and anyone that objects can expect to be ostracized...it's not like I give a shit. I will not be silenced nor will I be bullied into accepting it...get it now?

Rein it in, Sparky. I have not said anything about you being silent. You equated homosexuality with pedophilia. I simply pointed out the fact that this inaccurate, to say the least. Then you start posting profanities and slinging crap around.

Jeez junior, get a grip.

 

[Dale Smith]

n

Does the love of Jesus also encompass pedophilia as well as homosexuality? Spare me your Aleister Crowley bullshit of "Do as thou wilst"

Pedophilia and homosexuality are not comparable.

With one you have two adults who love each other. With the other you have a child being abused.

Go **** yourself....spare me the "friend of the queer" speech.

Just the truth. Nice "Christian" response. You just use select bible passages to justify your hate.

No, I don't "hate" but I am tired of the LGBT and GLSEN agenda where they are pushing acceptance for the queer agenda in our public schools starting at the grade school level and anyone that objects can expect to be ostracized...it's not like I give a shit. I will not be silenced nor will I be bullied into accepting it...get it now?

Rein it in, Sparky. I have not said anything about you being silent. You equated homosexuality with pedophilia. I simply pointed out the fact that this inaccurate, to say the least. Then you start posting profanities and slinging crap around.

Jeez junior, get a grip.

The LGBT and NAMBLA are wanting to lower the age of consent like what they are trying to do in the UK...so yeah, I am equating homosexuality and pedophilia because they go "hand in hand"...deny it all you want but it is what it is.

 

[WinterBorn]

Pedophilia and homosexuality are not comparable.

With one you have two adults who love each other. With the other you have a child being abused.

Go **** yourself....spare me the "friend of the queer" speech.

Just the truth. Nice "Christian" response. You just use select bible passages to justify your hate.

No, I don't "hate" but I am tired of the LGBT and GLSEN agenda where they are pushing acceptance for the queer agenda in our public schools starting at the grade school level and anyone that objects can expect to be ostracized...it's not like I give a shit. I will not be silenced nor will I be bullied into accepting it...get it now?

Rein it in, Sparky. I have not said anything about you being silent. You equated homosexuality with pedophilia. I simply pointed out the fact that this inaccurate, to say the least. Then you start posting profanities and slinging crap around.

Jeez junior, get a grip.

The LGBT and NAMBLA are wanting to lower the age of consent like what they are trying to do in the UK...so yeah, I am equating homosexuality and pedophilia because they go "hand in hand"...deny it all you want but it is what it is.

What it is would be bullshit. The FBI separates the two, and even classifies child molesters who molest young children as neither gay nor straight.

You are welcome your beliefs, but the facts remain the same.

 

[Packyderm]

Christian churches condemn homosexuality. That your experience is limited to empty, banal, fad following dying churches simply gives you a distorted and provincial view of the world. The two largest denominations in the US, by far the largest , follow the Christian condemnation of homosexuality. And have no part in these sham gay marriages. That's Roman Catholic and Southern Baptist.
Worldwide the same holds. Orthodox , Roman Catholic, Coptic....that's about 1.5 billion Outside the us the charismatic movement sweeping South America rejects homosexuality as do Anglican communion churches outside the anglosphere
There has always been heresy. Just don't pretend your homosexual heresy is Christianity.

 

[PredFan]

Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".

Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.

Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.

Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.

No it's not but it IS in fact a liberty. Why are you against freedom and liberty? Why do you want big government to tell people how to live their lives? Do you not care about the values this country was founded on?

 

[Packyderm]

Was gay marriage a part of the founding? No? Wow. There goes that pathetic bit of doublethink.

 

[jillian]

Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".

Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.

Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.

Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.

apparently, it is.

hint: marriage is a fundamental right. two consenting adults cannot be denied that right absent a compelling governmental interest. your bigotry is not a compelling governmental interest.

thanks.

now read:

{{meta.pageTitle}}

p.s. marriage has zero to do with procreation or there would be a test to make sure no one who could not have a child or would choose not to have a child would get married. now be quiet.

 

[Tennyson]

Is same-sex marriage a constitutional right depends on the definition of "constitutional."

Is there constitutional basis for same-sex marriage? No.

Was there a constitutional basis for the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling? No.

If one wants to use the Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges as being constitutional, then yes.

 

[Skylar]

Is same-sex marriage a constitutional right depends on the definition of "constitutional."

Is there constitutional basis for same-sex marriage? No.

Was there a constitutional basis for the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling? No.

If one wants to use the Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges as being constitutional, then yes.

Says who? Remembering of course that the Constitution isn't an exhaustive list of rights. But an exhaustive list of powers.

And if you're curious to see how is supposed to interpret the constitution according to the Founders, just read Federalist 78. I'll give you a hint: its not you.

 

[Tennyson]

Is same-sex marriage a constitutional right depends on the definition of "constitutional."

Is there constitutional basis for same-sex marriage? No.

Was there a constitutional basis for the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling? No.

If one wants to use the Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges as being constitutional, then yes.

Says who? Remembering of course that the Constitution isn't an exhaustive list of rights. But an exhaustive list of powers.

And if you're curious to see how is supposed to interpret the constitution according to the Founders, just read Federalist 78. I'll give you a hint: its not you.

I am going to say every single founder. The method of interpretation was consistent with each of the founders: always go back to the debates and the spirit and purpose for the meaning rather than making up a meaning to suit the flavor of the day.

What does Federalist No. 78 say? First off, you cannot quote mine for something that fits your views and pass it off as representative of the founder’s method of interpretation. Secondly, Federalist No. 78 states several things regarding interpretation of the Constitution:

Hamilton is referencing the judiciary and the federal Congress only as the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction over the states other than a conflict with one of the enumerated powers in Article I, Section 8. The court overstepped its bounds once regarding the states in the founding era, and the Eleventh Amendment was proposed in three days to reign in the court.

States control their destiny and what the people want in their state.

The federal government is limited to Article I, Section 8 powers of interstate commerce, military, and foreign policy;

The federal judiciary is bound by the Constitution until the people change the Constitution.​

Hamilton also emphasized these same sentiments in Federalist No. 81, Federalist No. 33, and on June 18, 1787, in the Philadelphia convention.

The Constitution has limited and enumerated powers. The federal judiciary’s were more limited than Congress.

 

[Skylar]

Is same-sex marriage a constitutional right depends on the definition of "constitutional."

Is there constitutional basis for same-sex marriage? No.

Was there a constitutional basis for the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling? No.

If one wants to use the Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges as being constitutional, then yes.

Says who? Remembering of course that the Constitution isn't an exhaustive list of rights. But an exhaustive list of powers.

And if you're curious to see how is supposed to interpret the constitution according to the Founders, just read Federalist 78. I'll give you a hint: its not you.

I am going to say every single founder. The method of interpretation was consistent with each of the founders: always go back to the debates and the spirit and purpose for the meaning rather than making up a meaning to suit the flavor of the day.

What does Federalist No. 78 say? First off, you cannot quote mine for something that fits your views and pass it off as representative of the founder’s method of interpretation. Secondly, Federalist No. 78 states several things regarding interpretation of the Constitution:

Hamilton is referencing the judiciary and the federal Congress only as the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction over the states other than a conflict with one of the enumerated powers in Article I, Section 8. The court overstepped its bounds once regarding the states in the founding era, and the Eleventh Amendment was proposed in three days to reign in the court.

States control their destiny and what the people want in their state.

The federal government is limited to Article I, Section 8 powers of interstate commerce, military, and foreign policy;

The federal judiciary is bound by the Constitution until the people change the Constitution.​

Hamilton also emphasized these same sentiments in Federalist No. 81, Federalist No. 33, and on June 18, 1787, in the Philadelphia convention.

The Constitution has limited and enumerated powers. The federal judiciary’s were more limited than Congress.

I'm pretty sure that Hamilton didn't refer to himself in the 3rd person in Federalist 78. So that's not Federalist 78 you're quoting. Let me offer you the actual quotes:

The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.

With 'them' in that context....being the federal judiciary. The role of the judiciary is to intepret the constitution.

As for 'changing the constitution', that's exactly what was done with the 14th amendment. The due process clause of which was the basis of the Obergefell ruling.

The constitution is not an exhaustive list of rights, as the 9th amendment makes comically clear. Its an exhaustive list of powers. And the courts have recognized the right to marry is a fundamental right.

 

[Tennyson]

Is same-sex marriage a constitutional right depends on the definition of "constitutional."

Is there constitutional basis for same-sex marriage? No.

Was there a constitutional basis for the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling? No.

If one wants to use the Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges as being constitutional, then yes.

Says who? Remembering of course that the Constitution isn't an exhaustive list of rights. But an exhaustive list of powers.

And if you're curious to see how is supposed to interpret the constitution according to the Founders, just read Federalist 78. I'll give you a hint: its not you.

I am going to say every single founder. The method of interpretation was consistent with each of the founders: always go back to the debates and the spirit and purpose for the meaning rather than making up a meaning to suit the flavor of the day.

What does Federalist No. 78 say? First off, you cannot quote mine for something that fits your views and pass it off as representative of the founder’s method of interpretation. Secondly, Federalist No. 78 states several things regarding interpretation of the Constitution:

Hamilton is referencing the judiciary and the federal Congress only as the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction over the states other than a conflict with one of the enumerated powers in Article I, Section 8. The court overstepped its bounds once regarding the states in the founding era, and the Eleventh Amendment was proposed in three days to reign in the court.

States control their destiny and what the people want in their state.

The federal government is limited to Article I, Section 8 powers of interstate commerce, military, and foreign policy;

The federal judiciary is bound by the Constitution until the people change the Constitution.​

Hamilton also emphasized these same sentiments in Federalist No. 81, Federalist No. 33, and on June 18, 1787, in the Philadelphia convention.

The Constitution has limited and enumerated powers. The federal judiciary’s were more limited than Congress.

I'm pretty sure that Hamilton didn't refer to himself in the 3rd person in Federalist 78. So that's not Federalist 78 you're quoting. Let me offer you the actual quotes:

The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.

With 'them' in that context....being the federal judiciary. The role of the judiciary is to intepret the constitution.

As for 'changing the constitution', that's exactly what was done with the 14th amendment. The due process clause of which was the basis of the Obergefell ruling.

The constitution is not an exhaustive list of rights, as the 9th amendment makes comically clear. Its an exhaustive list of powers. And the courts have recognized the right to marry is a fundamental right.

I am not sure what point you are trying to make with an out of context quote from Hamilton’s Federalist No. 78, which is out of context with the other writings by Hamilton and the other founders regarding interpretation of the Constitution: Hamilton also emphasized these same sentiments in Federalist No. 81, Federalist No. 33, and on June 18, 1787, in the Philadelphia convention.

Hamilton is referencing the judiciary and the federal Congress only as the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction over the states other than a conflict with one of the enumerated powers in Article I, Section 8. The court overstepped its bounds once regarding the states in the founding era, and the Eleventh Amendment was proposed in three days to reign in the court.

You are quote mining for support of your worldview, and that is not credible. An out of context quote from one document, which is out of context for all the documents on this subject is not an argument regarding the founders’ intent on how the Constitution is interpreted.

Hamilton is speaking of the separation of powers. Hamilton is also speaking to the limitations on Congress and if they pass legislation outside of their purview. Hamilton is not speaking of state laws or state constitutions.

You left the next paragraph out also:

Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental.​

The Fourteenth Amendment did not change the Constitution. Twentieth century activist judges used the Fourteenth Amendment to change the Constitution. They are two different things.

The Obergefell v. Hodges ruling did not use the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

 

[Syriusly]

[
The Fourteenth Amendment did not change the Constitution. Twentieth century activist judges used the Fourteenth Amendment to change the Constitution. They are two different things.

The Obergefell v. Hodges ruling did not use the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Fourteenth Amendment did indeed change the Constitution. In many fundamental ways- beyond even Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

Prior to the 14th Amendment States had much more power to deny the rights of Americans within their state.

Obergefell refers repeatedly to the Due Porcess clause


(1) The fundamental liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices defining personal identity and beliefs.

The first premise of this Court’s relevant precedents is that the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy. This abiding connection between marriage and liberty is why Loving invalidated interracial marriage bans under the Due Process Clause. See 388 U. S., at 12. Decisions about marriage are among the most intimate that an individual can make. See Lawrence, supra, at 574. This is true for all persons, whatever their sexual orientation

(3) The right of same-sex couples to marry is also derived from the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection. The Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause are connected in a profound way. Rights implicit in liberty and rights secured by equal protection may rest on different precepts and are not always co-extensive, yet each may be instructive as to the meaning and reach of the other. This dynamic is reflected in Loving, where the Court invoked both the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause;

And finally- explicitely- you are refuted

(4) The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. Same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry. Baker v. Nelson is overruled.

 

[Skylar]

I am not sure what point you are trying to make with an out of context quote from Hamilton’s Federalist No. 78, which is out of context with the other writings by Hamilton and the other founders regarding interpretation of the Constitution: Hamilton also emphasized these same sentiments in Federalist No. 81, Federalist No. 33, and on June 18, 1787, in the Philadelphia convention.

Horseshit. My citation of Federalist 78 is completely in context and establishes, unambiguously, that the judiciary is to be the interpreter of the meaning of the constitution.

It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body.

With 'them' being the federal judiciary. And 'its' being the the constitution. We have the constitutionally designated body to interpret the constitution saying one thing. And you saying another.

Obviously the Federal Judicary wins.

Hamilton is referencing the judiciary and the federal Congress only as the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction over the states other than a conflict with one of the enumerated powers in Article I, Section 8. The court overstepped its bounds once regarding the states in the founding era, and the Eleventh Amendment was proposed in three days to reign in the court.

Hamilton is citing the judiciary and its role as interpreter of the meaning of the constitution. That's beyond dispute. As Barron v. Baltimore established, the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the States under the Constitution. The 14th amendment changed that, granting the federal government the power to prevent the States
from violating the rights of federal citizens.

Which every State citizen is.

All of which I'm pretty sure you know.

You are quote mining for support of your worldview, and that is not credible. An out of context quote from one document, which is out of context for all the documents on this subject is not an argument regarding the founders’ intent on how the Constitution is interpreted.

Again, horseshit. You have provided nothing to back your perspective, nor the slightest evidence that the judiciary isn't the interpreter of the meaning of the constitution by design. You've simply alluded vaguely to the quote being 'out of context' or 'quote mined'.

When we both know its fully in context and obviously establishes my point: That the federal judiciary is the arbiter of the meaning of the constitution.

And like it or not, the 14th amendment is part of the constitution. Thus, any dispute between you and the federal judiciary on the meaning and application of the 14th amendment has the same winner every time:

Not you.

Hamilton is speaking of the separation of powers. Hamilton is also speaking to the limitations on Congress and if they pass legislation outside of their purview. Hamilton is not speaking of state laws or state constitutions.

You left the next paragraph out also:

Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental.

​

[/quote]
A citation which in no way contradicts my point. As the judges have an obligation to put the Constitution above any statute. Under the Bill of Rights, any federal statute. Under the 14th amendment, any state law as well.

Which is exactly what they did in Obergefell....placing the due process clause of the 14th amendment to the Constitution above the State laws that violate the rights of citizens.

Exactly as the federal judiciary should.

The Fourteenth Amendment did not change the Constitution.

Laughing....of course it did. Every amendment changes the constitution. That's what amendments are. With the primary proponents of the 14th amendment in congress arguing that it would apply the Bill of Rights to the States.

With Senator Howard going so far as to read the Bill of Rights, amendment by amendment, as what the 14th amendment is intended to apply to the States.

They even cited Barron v. Baltimore as establishing that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States. And cited the 14th amendment as changing that.

To argue that the 14th was never intended to apply the Bill of Rights to the States or change the constitution is beyond ludicrious. And you know its nonsense, as I've quoted citations of both Howard and Bingham to you making these exact points.

The Obergefell v. Hodges ruling did not use the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Um, wow. You're really out of your depth. As the Obergefell court obviously did;

These considerations lead to the conclusion that the right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty.

Seriously, do you ever fact check any of the nonsense you type? I'm kinda embarrassed for you at this point.

 

[Tennyson]

I am not sure what point you are trying to make with an out of context quote from Hamilton’s Federalist No. 78, which is out of context with the other writings by Hamilton and the other founders regarding interpretation of the Constitution: Hamilton also emphasized these same sentiments in Federalist No. 81, Federalist No. 33, and on June 18, 1787, in the Philadelphia convention.

Horseshit. My citation of Federalist 78 is completely in context and establishes, unambiguously, that the judiciary is to be the interpreter of the meaning of the constitution.

It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body.

With 'them' being the federal judiciary. And 'its' being the the constitution. We have the constitutionally designated body to interpret the constitution saying one thing. And you saying another.

Obviously the Federal Judicary wins.

Hamilton is referencing the judiciary and the federal Congress only as the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction over the states other than a conflict with one of the enumerated powers in Article I, Section 8. The court overstepped its bounds once regarding the states in the founding era, and the Eleventh Amendment was proposed in three days to reign in the court.

Hamilton is citing the judiciary and its role as interpreter of the meaning of the constitution. That's beyond dispute. As Barron v. Baltimore established, the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the States under the Constitution. The 14th amendment changed that, granting the federal government the power to prevent the States
from violating the rights of federal citizens.

Which every State citizen is.

All of which I'm pretty sure you know.

You are quote mining for support of your worldview, and that is not credible. An out of context quote from one document, which is out of context for all the documents on this subject is not an argument regarding the founders’ intent on how the Constitution is interpreted.

Again, horseshit. You have provided nothing to back your perspective, nor the slightest evidence that the judiciary isn't the interpreter of the meaning of the constitution by design. You've simply alluded vaguely to the quote being 'out of context' or 'quote mined'.

When we both know its fully in context and obviously establishes my point: That the federal judiciary is the arbiter of the meaning of the constitution.

And like it or not, the 14th amendment is part of the constitution. Thus, any dispute between you and the federal judiciary on the meaning and application of the 14th amendment has the same winner every time:

Not you.

Hamilton is speaking of the separation of powers. Hamilton is also speaking to the limitations on Congress and if they pass legislation outside of their purview. Hamilton is not speaking of state laws or state constitutions.

You left the next paragraph out also:

Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental.

​

A citation which in no way contradicts my point. As the judges have an obligation to put the Constitution above any statute. Under the Bill of Rights, any federal statute. Under the 14th amendment, any state law as well.

Which is exactly what they did in Obergefell....placing the due process clause of the 14th amendment to the Constitution above the State laws that violate the rights of citizens.

Exactly as the federal judiciary should.

The Fourteenth Amendment did not change the Constitution.

Laughing....of course it did. Every amendment changes the constitution. That's what amendments are. With the primary proponents of the 14th amendment in congress arguing that it would apply the Bill of Rights to the States.

With Senator Howard going so far as to read the Bill of Rights, amendment by amendment, as what the 14th amendment is intended to apply to the States.

They even cited Barron v. Baltimore as establishing that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States. And cited the 14th amendment as changing that.

To argue that the 14th was never intended to apply the Bill of Rights to the States or change the constitution is beyond ludicrious. And you know its nonsense, as I've quoted citations of both Howard and Bingham to you making these exact points.

The Obergefell v. Hodges ruling did not use the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Um, wow. You're really out of your depth. As the Obergefell court obviously did;

These considerations lead to the conclusion that the right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty.

Seriously, do you ever fact check any of the nonsense you type? I'm kinda embarrassed for you at this point.[/QUOTE]

Your entire premise revolves around an out of context quote by Hamilton in a document about the separation of powers regarding the federal judiciary vis-a-vis the legislative branch. The concept you are presenting regarding same-sex marriage and the states was not a concept in the federalist papers, was not a concept in the founding era, nor was it a concept in 1866. The entire concept was created in 2015 by a Supreme Court with no constitutional basis.

You seem to have a predilection for lowering an exchange to gutter level exchanges. I do not play that game as I have yet to encounter anyone with that strategy to have the intellectual or educational background to advance any discussion on a higher plane than that.

Obergefell v. Hodges not use the due process of the Fourteenth Amendment. Obergefell used substantive due process and substantive due process did not exist until the twentieth century. The due process clause and the equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment were both functions of the law within the judicial process and had nothing to do with rights. Just because Kennedy said that he used substantive due process from the Fourteenth Amendment does not make it so and it cannot be so because it did not exist.