Kagan: "There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage."

[mal]

Kagan: "There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage."

Baptist Press - Nominee Kagan has record supporting gay causes - News with a Christian Perspective

Well...

She gonna Vote that way on the Bench?...



peace...

 

[Modbert]

Whoever Obama nominates is going to move the court to the right, since nobody will be as Liberal as Stevens.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Kagan: "There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage."

Baptist Press - Nominee Kagan has record supporting gay causes - News with a Christian Perspective

Well...

She gonna Vote that way on the Bench?...



peace...

Well at least this shows she has a basic grasp of the constitution as marriage isn't part of it at all...whether hetrosexual or homosexual marriage isn't in there.

Why not? Because the constitution isn't there to give us, the people, rights....we get those from our creator and they are unalienable.....the constitution is there to limit the federal governments power.

+1 for the new nominee for understanding this basic aspect.

 

[Truthmatters]

She will move the court to the right.

The right will bitch abnd complain about it not being as far to the right as they want .

The court will be even more futher right than the people of the USA

 

[Modbert]

Why not? Because the constitution isn't there to give us, the people, rights....we get those from our creator and they are unalienable.....the constitution is there to limit the federal governments power.

+1 for the new nominee for understanding this basic aspect.

Except the only problem is that we don't get them from our creator and they are certainly not unalienable. Hence, they aren't rights either, since rights are things that cannot be taken away.

 

[Richard-H]

The Constitution may not recognise the rights of gays to marry, but the Declaration of Independance certainly does:

"...with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

If you're gay not being able to marry is a violation of both your liberty and your persuit of happiness.

 

[Truthmatters]

You got it RH

 

[dilloduck]

The Constitution may not recognise the rights of gays to marry, but the Declaration of Independance certainly does:

"...with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

If you're gay not being able to marry is a violation of both your liberty and your persuit of happiness.

To say nothing of a violation of your asshole.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Kagan: "There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage."

Baptist Press - Nominee Kagan has record supporting gay causes - News with a Christian Perspective

Well...

She gonna Vote that way on the Bench?...



peace...

Well at least this shows she has a basic grasp of the constitution as marriage isn't part of it at all...whether hetrosexual or homosexual marriage isn't in there.

Why not? Because the constitution isn't there to give us, the people, rights....we get those from our creator and they are unalienable.....the constitution is there to limit the federal governments power.

+1 for the new nominee for understanding this basic aspect.

Why wouldn't marriage be an inalienable right? Being the most basic and fundamental relationship that human beings have.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The Constitution may not recognise the rights of gays to marry, but the Declaration of Independance certainly does:

"...with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

If you're gay not being able to marry is a violation of both your liberty and your persuit of happiness.

Using that logic if you are a pedophile not having the right to sex with children is also a violation of the Declaration of Independence.

 

[WillowTree]

She was the doofas who voted to ban the military and the rotc from recruiting at Harvard.. We don't kneed her.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Why not? Because the constitution isn't there to give us, the people, rights....we get those from our creator and they are unalienable.....the constitution is there to limit the federal governments power.

+1 for the new nominee for understanding this basic aspect.

Except the only problem is that we don't get them from our creator and they are certainly not unalienable. Hence, they aren't rights either, since rights are things that cannot be taken away.

Sorry I was just confusing the declaration of independance with the constitution .

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Kagan: "There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage."

Baptist Press - Nominee Kagan has record supporting gay causes - News with a Christian Perspective

Well...

She gonna Vote that way on the Bench?...



peace...

Well at least this shows she has a basic grasp of the constitution as marriage isn't part of it at all...whether hetrosexual or homosexual marriage isn't in there.

Why not? Because the constitution isn't there to give us, the people, rights....we get those from our creator and they are unalienable.....the constitution is there to limit the federal governments power.

+1 for the new nominee for understanding this basic aspect.

Why wouldn't marriage be an inalienable right? Being the most basic and fundamental relationship that human beings have.

Maybe....life, liberty, and THE PERSUIT OF HAPPINESS....but like I just told dogbert that was the declaration of indepenance not the constitution.


Since you all feel you are so smart why dont you show where the constitution guarantees MARRIAGE AS A RIGHT TO ANYONE!!!

Go ahead and try.....if you can't find it then you are all wrong.

 

[Chris]

Elana Kagan?

I was hoping for Daryn Kagan...

 

[Richard-H]

The Constitution may not recognise the rights of gays to marry, but the Declaration of Independance certainly does:

"...with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

If you're gay not being able to marry is a violation of both your liberty and your persuit of happiness.

Using that logic if you are a pedophile not having the right to sex with children is also a violation of the Declaration of Independence.

No. The French 'Rights of Man', used as a reference by the judicial system states:

"4. Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights. These limits can only be determined by law."

Pedophilia is a severe injury to the children, so would not be considered a reasonable liberty or pursuit of happiness.

But of course, common sense should have told you that anyway.

 

[Conspiracist]

The Constitution may not recognise the rights of gays to marry, but the Declaration of Independance certainly does:

"...with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

If you're gay not being able to marry is a violation of both your liberty and your persuit of happiness.

Using that logic if you are a pedophile not having the right to sex with children is also a violation of the Declaration of Independence.

Pedophilia does not fall into the category of not harming others or infringing on others freedom so.... FAIL

 

[Flopper]

Kagan: "There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage."

Baptist Press - Nominee Kagan has record supporting gay causes - News with a Christian Perspective

Well...

She gonna Vote that way on the Bench?...



peace...

Trying to guess which way a potential justice might vote is a waste of time. They continue to surprise both the right and left, which is the way it should be. Pass cases and personal preference should not bear on their decisions.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Kagan: "There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage."

Baptist Press - Nominee Kagan has record supporting gay causes - News with a Christian Perspective

Well...

She gonna Vote that way on the Bench?...



peace...

Nice link. Tells me all I need to know (btw, do you dance with snakes at Sunday Church and believe Jesus actually preached hate and fear?).

 

[007]

Kagan: "There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage."

Baptist Press - Nominee Kagan has record supporting gay causes - News with a Christian Perspective

Well...

She gonna Vote that way on the Bench?

No. What this means is she knows it's not, but given the chance to vote on a constitutional amendment to make it a right, she'll vote yes.

She a fucking fag lover and enabler, and since OWEbama nominated her, that kind of makes me wonder now if that story of the limo driver sucking him off in the back seat is true.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[.

Why not? Because the constitution isn't there to give us, the people, rights....we get those from our creator and they are unalienable.....the constitution is there to limit the federal governments power.

+1 for the new nominee for understanding this basic aspect.

The Constitution is not there to limit the federal government's power to protect rights.