GOP Senator Celebrates His Vote Against Gay Marriage By Attending Son's Gay Marriage

[Couchpotato]

the federal govt has not power to regulate marriage..‘makes laws….Congress can only do what is limited to un Art 1 Sect 8

the court can hear issues concerning constitutional claims

Congress isnt part of the Federal Government? When did that happen?

 

[struth]

Congress isnt part of the Federal Government? When did that happen?

they are and have no power to regulate marriage. There power is limited to what is in Art 1 Sect 8
where there are they granted the authority?

i’ll wait

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

the federal govt has not power to regulate marriage..‘makes laws….Congress can only do what is limited to un Art 1 Sect 8

the court can hear issues concerning constitutional claims

Clear as mud, You seem to be confused about what exactly constitutes the Federal Government or have any understanding of the existance of unenumerated rights or judicial review

 

[struth]

Clear as mud You seem to be confused about what exactly constitutes the Federal Government

not at all…you seem to be confused by what i mean by regulating amd what courts do

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

not at all…you seem to be confused by what i mean by regulating amd what courts do

Yea I am. Try composing a coherant and concise paragraph or two-with references- explaining what you're trying to say

 

[struth]

Yea I am. Try composing a coherant and concise paragraph or two-with references- explaining what you're trying to say

congress makes federal laws, the president enforces them. They are bound by the US Consititition as to their power…art 1 sect 8 limits it. They have no power to regulate marriage.

Courts review laws, federal courts can review state law, because state have to follow the US Constitution…States don’t have limited power via art 1 sec 8, but are limited by the amendments.

So states can regulate marriages, but they can’t violate the constitution in doing so

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Courts review laws, federal courts can review state law, because state have to follow the US Constitution…States don’t have limited power via art 1 sec 8, but are limited by the amendments.

So states can regulate marriages, but they can’t violate the constitution in doing so

Then you agree with the Obergefell decision?

 

[struth]

Then you agree with the Obergefell decision?

yeah…not sure where you got i didn’t

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

congress makes federal laws, the president enforces them. been established bThey are bound by the US Consititition as to their power…art 1 sect 8 limits it. They have no power to regulate marriage.

Acrually the DOJ enforces it. You keep citing Artical 1 Sec 8 but but give no indication as to whether or not you reccognise unenumerated rights that flow from the bill of rights abd that have established by case law

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

yeah…not sure where you got i didn’t

You have not been clear, Thats all. Still not sure where you stand on gay rights and marriage

 

[Couchpotato]

they are and have no power to regulate marriage. There power is limited to what is in Art 1 Sect 8
where there are they granted the authority?

i’ll wait

I agree they do not. Nor should anyone want them to. Hence the reason while Im not advocating for the overturning of Obergfell Constitutionally I can follow the reasoning the court would likely take to do so.

 

[Couchpotato]

You have not been clear, Thats all. Still not sure where you stand on gay rights and marriage

This is your problem. Your views on this singular subject are clouding your judgement on the larger issue of whether the court should be ruling on things of this nature which do not fall under the purview of the Federal Government. Its the same with the Roe decision. So many people are so caught up in what Roe decided they cant stop to think whether the court had any business deciding it in the first place. And that applies regardless of whether you ultimately agree with the outcome or not.

We should expect our justices to rule on the law and the Constitution regardless of the blow back or popular sentiment at the time of the ruling.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I agree they do not. Nor should anyone want them to. Hence the reason while Im not advocating for the overturning of Obergfell

What!!? But as I has demonstrated, Obergefell is based on the concept that the right to gay marriage is based on love, commitment and attraction, which you have rejected. How confused are you anyway?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Constitutionally I can follow the reasoning the court would likely take to do so.

What reasoning is that?

 

[Couchpotato]

What!!? But as I has demonstrated, Obergefell is based on the concept that the right to gay marriage is based on love, commitment and attraction, which you have rejected. How confused are you anyway?

This "conversation" is going no where. You just proved my point. Whether or not you ultimately believe gay people should be allowed to get married is immaterial to the question of whether the SCOTUS has any business ruling on the subject. Like Ive said numerous times now, the Obergfell decision has created legal dependances which likely make it impossible to overturn (not that I was advocating for it's overturning in the first place). That said if the court decided based on the Constitution that the former court was incorrect to rule on this subject and the matter should be returned to the State legislatures, I can follow the logic of that argument. IF they did I would hope and expect for them to at the same time rule that marriage contracts entered into in one state must be honored in all states due to Art IV Sec 1.

 

[Couchpotato]

What reasoning is that?

That marriage being something that isnt in the Constitution is something that individual States must pass laws on. Or not pass laws on as they see fit.

 

[struth]

Acrually the DOJ enforces it. You keep citing Artical 1 Sec 8 but but give no indication as to whether or not you reccognise unenumerated rights that flow from the bill of rights abd that have established by case law

the DOJ is part of the executive branch…they work for the president…the power of the executive vest in the president, he delegates that to the doj…just wow

rights aren’t things given to us by the federal govt or any govt..

art 1 section. 8 states what the federal govt can regulate.

 

[struth]

You have not been clear, Thats all. Still not sure where you stand on gay rights and marriage

i am not sure where i was ever clear i didn’t support that. It wa correctly decided…and it was dealing with a state law regulating marriage that violated the constitutional rights of individuals. it has nothing to do with an act of congress or the president…because the federal govt

 

[pknopp]

they are and have no power to regulate marriage. There power is limited to what is in Art 1 Sect 8
where there are they granted the authority?

i’ll wait

The same place that granted federal marriage benefits.

 

[struth]

The same place that granted federal marriage benefits.

the tax code? you are really comparing the tax code to regulating marriage? yes the feds can regulate the tax code