And I know for a fact, so does Seawytch and all the other LGBT paid bloggers here, that just one sexual orientation (homosexuality) cannot enjoy a "right" (marriage isn't mentioned anywhere in the Constitution), while other sexual orientations are denied (monosexuals/singles, polysexuals/polygamists).
Well, I think there is a very important distinction that needs to be made here. Your rights are
unlimited. The Bill of Rights doesn't outline your rights. It was put in to further protect what the founders felt were the most extremely critical rights.
Here's a quick synopsis of what transpired: as a nation we were operating under the Articles of Confederation. The first "liberals" such as Alexander Hamilton felt the federal government was too weak and needed to be stronger. True conservatives like Thomas Jefferson lost their mind and vehemently opposed a more powerful federal government (having lived under oppression and being exponentially smarter than Hamilton, Jefferson realized the dangers of this). A fierce battle ensued with both sides pleading their cases (which is what lead to the Federalist Papers - where both sides penned articles in newspapers stating the pros of their positions and cons of their oppositions positions). When the people ultimately settled on the U.S. Constitution to build a
slightly more cohesive federal government, they insisted on a Bill of Rights for the items they felt were of the upmost critical of rights to protect.
Ironically enough, Alexander Hamilton failed to see the stupidity of his own position of expanding the power of the federal government when he warned against the dangers of the Bill of Rights. He accurately predicted in Federalist No. 84 that one day, libtards would distort the Bill of Rights to mean that was the
full extent of the rights of the American people - not the bare minimum of rights to be extra protected against the federal government:
“I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution,
but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted.
For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the[…]”
So basically, the issue is not that the U.S. Constitution doesn't explicitly outline the right to gay marriage. Quite the contrary, the issue is that the U.S. Constitution explicitly states that anything outside of the 18 enumerated powers of the federal government are
not the legal responsibility of the federal government and hence they have
no authority over it. Therefore the Supreme Court has zero authority over it as well and cannot force the states to comply with anything outside of those 18 enumerated powers. A basic legal reality that libtards like wytchy are completely unaware of.
Excerpt From: Hamilton, Alexander. “The Federalist Papers.” iBooks. This material may be protected by copyright.
Check out this book on the iBooks Store: The Federalist Papers by Alexander Hamilton on iBooks
