Let the States Decide- ALA Supreme Court Justice urges Defiance- Gay Marraige

[The Rabbi]

As a married heterosexual man, how does two gay people getting married a threat to me or my country? For those that want less gov't intervention, they should stay out of grown adults bedrooms...hyprocrites and weak minded dupes.

Strawman argument/

In other words, Rabbi can't explain how two gay people getting married threatens anyone.

That's true. I cannot explain how it causes hunger in Africa. Or how it causes global warming either. That doesnt mean those things have ever been arguments against "gay marriage." I can tell you that defining marriage is a state power which is being undermined by an activist judiciary. I can tell you that gay marriage is poor public policy because it undermines the purpose of state sponsored marriage to begin with.
The only arguments against those two are Arguments 1 and 2.

You may tell anyone anything you like, but it remains subjective opinion and factually wrong.

The issue has nothing to do with 'defining' marriage; indeed, all parties involved agree as to the definition of marriage and in no way seek to 'redefine' it.

The issue concerns the fact that same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts in all 50 states, where some states seek to deny gay Americans access to marriage law in violation of the 14th Amendment.

Americans are citizens of the United States first and foremost, residents of the states subordinate to that, including gay Americans. Citizens' civil rights as guaranteed and protected by the Federal Constitution are consequently immune from attack by the states. As a fact of settled, accepted, and fundamental Constitutional jurisprudence the states have no 'authority' whatsoever to 'decide' who will or will not have his civil rights.

You're joking, rght? THe constutional amendments etc that define marriage as between one man and one woman are exactly the issue. Those are exactly the measures that gay activists judges have been striking down. States have the Constitutional authority to decide who is eligible to marry, just as they do who is eligible to get a drivers license or who is eligible to get a gun carry permit. No one has made the argument that states are denying rights to people with misdemeanors when they deny them carry permits. The state is empowered to set criteria. Same with marriage licenses.

 

[NYcarbineer]

As a married heterosexual man, how does two gay people getting married a threat to me or my country? For those that want less gov't intervention, they should stay out of grown adults bedrooms...hyprocrites and weak minded dupes.

Strawman argument/

In other words, Rabbi can't explain how two gay people getting married threatens anyone.

That's true. I cannot explain how it causes hunger in Africa. Or how it causes global warming either. That doesnt mean those things have ever been arguments against "gay marriage." I can tell you that defining marriage is a state power which is being undermined by an activist judiciary. I can tell you that gay marriage is poor public policy because it undermines the purpose of state sponsored marriage to begin with.
The only arguments against those two are Arguments 1 and 2.

You may tell anyone anything you like, but it remains subjective opinion and factually wrong.

The issue has nothing to do with 'defining' marriage; indeed, all parties involved agree as to the definition of marriage and in no way seek to 'redefine' it.

The issue concerns the fact that same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts in all 50 states, where some states seek to deny gay Americans access to marriage law in violation of the 14th Amendment.

Americans are citizens of the United States first and foremost, residents of the states subordinate to that, including gay Americans. Citizens' civil rights as guaranteed and protected by the Federal Constitution are consequently immune from attack by the states. As a fact of settled, accepted, and fundamental Constitutional jurisprudence the states have no 'authority' whatsoever to 'decide' who will or will not have his civil rights.

We can if we decide to carry out what our founding fathers would expect us to do. That is overthrow a lawless Un-Constitutional government. The jury is no longer out on that conclusion

-Geaux

Considering ourselves perpetually subordinate and obedient to the wishes of an 18th century gang of rebels is madness.

 

[Geaux4it]

Strawman argument/

In other words, Rabbi can't explain how two gay people getting married threatens anyone.

That's true. I cannot explain how it causes hunger in Africa. Or how it causes global warming either. That doesnt mean those things have ever been arguments against "gay marriage." I can tell you that defining marriage is a state power which is being undermined by an activist judiciary. I can tell you that gay marriage is poor public policy because it undermines the purpose of state sponsored marriage to begin with.
The only arguments against those two are Arguments 1 and 2.

You may tell anyone anything you like, but it remains subjective opinion and factually wrong.

The issue has nothing to do with 'defining' marriage; indeed, all parties involved agree as to the definition of marriage and in no way seek to 'redefine' it.

The issue concerns the fact that same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts in all 50 states, where some states seek to deny gay Americans access to marriage law in violation of the 14th Amendment.

Americans are citizens of the United States first and foremost, residents of the states subordinate to that, including gay Americans. Citizens' civil rights as guaranteed and protected by the Federal Constitution are consequently immune from attack by the states. As a fact of settled, accepted, and fundamental Constitutional jurisprudence the states have no 'authority' whatsoever to 'decide' who will or will not have his civil rights.

We can if we decide to carry out what our founding fathers would expect us to do. That is overthrow a lawless Un-Constitutional government. The jury is no longer out on that conclusion

-Geaux

Considering ourselves perpetually subordinate and obedient to the wishes of an 18th century gang of rebels is madness.

No it's not. It's called American and appears you need not apply'

-Geaux

 

[NYcarbineer]

As a married heterosexual man, how does two gay people getting married a threat to me or my country? For those that want less gov't intervention, they should stay out of grown adults bedrooms...hyprocrites and weak minded dupes.

Strawman argument/

In other words, Rabbi can't explain how two gay people getting married threatens anyone.

That's true. I cannot explain how it causes hunger in Africa. Or how it causes global warming either. That doesnt mean those things have ever been arguments against "gay marriage." I can tell you that defining marriage is a state power which is being undermined by an activist judiciary. I can tell you that gay marriage is poor public policy because it undermines the purpose of state sponsored marriage to begin with.
The only arguments against those two are Arguments 1 and 2.

You may tell anyone anything you like, but it remains subjective opinion and factually wrong.

The issue has nothing to do with 'defining' marriage; indeed, all parties involved agree as to the definition of marriage and in no way seek to 'redefine' it.

The issue concerns the fact that same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts in all 50 states, where some states seek to deny gay Americans access to marriage law in violation of the 14th Amendment.

Americans are citizens of the United States first and foremost, residents of the states subordinate to that, including gay Americans. Citizens' civil rights as guaranteed and protected by the Federal Constitution are consequently immune from attack by the states. As a fact of settled, accepted, and fundamental Constitutional jurisprudence the states have no 'authority' whatsoever to 'decide' who will or will not have his civil rights.

You're joking, rght? THe constutional amendments etc that define marriage as between one man and one woman are exactly the issue. Those are exactly the measures that gay activists judges have been striking down. States have the Constitutional authority to decide who is eligible to marry, just as they do who is eligible to get a drivers license or who is eligible to get a gun carry permit. No one has made the argument that states are denying rights to people with misdemeanors when they deny them carry permits. The state is empowered to set criteria. Same with marriage licenses.

States do not have the authority to make laws that conflict with the Constitution or federal law.

 

[NYcarbineer]

In other words, Rabbi can't explain how two gay people getting married threatens anyone.

That's true. I cannot explain how it causes hunger in Africa. Or how it causes global warming either. That doesnt mean those things have ever been arguments against "gay marriage." I can tell you that defining marriage is a state power which is being undermined by an activist judiciary. I can tell you that gay marriage is poor public policy because it undermines the purpose of state sponsored marriage to begin with.
The only arguments against those two are Arguments 1 and 2.

You may tell anyone anything you like, but it remains subjective opinion and factually wrong.

The issue has nothing to do with 'defining' marriage; indeed, all parties involved agree as to the definition of marriage and in no way seek to 'redefine' it.

The issue concerns the fact that same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts in all 50 states, where some states seek to deny gay Americans access to marriage law in violation of the 14th Amendment.

Americans are citizens of the United States first and foremost, residents of the states subordinate to that, including gay Americans. Citizens' civil rights as guaranteed and protected by the Federal Constitution are consequently immune from attack by the states. As a fact of settled, accepted, and fundamental Constitutional jurisprudence the states have no 'authority' whatsoever to 'decide' who will or will not have his civil rights.

We can if we decide to carry out what our founding fathers would expect us to do. That is overthrow a lawless Un-Constitutional government. The jury is no longer out on that conclusion

-Geaux

Considering ourselves perpetually subordinate and obedient to the wishes of an 18th century gang of rebels is madness.

No it's not. It's called American and appears you need not apply'

-Geaux

Maybe you don't understand the founders. They would mock the idea that we were here over 200 years later trying to conform to them like they were some sort of gods.

 

[The Rabbi]

Strawman argument/

In other words, Rabbi can't explain how two gay people getting married threatens anyone.

That's true. I cannot explain how it causes hunger in Africa. Or how it causes global warming either. That doesnt mean those things have ever been arguments against "gay marriage." I can tell you that defining marriage is a state power which is being undermined by an activist judiciary. I can tell you that gay marriage is poor public policy because it undermines the purpose of state sponsored marriage to begin with.
The only arguments against those two are Arguments 1 and 2.

You may tell anyone anything you like, but it remains subjective opinion and factually wrong.

The issue has nothing to do with 'defining' marriage; indeed, all parties involved agree as to the definition of marriage and in no way seek to 'redefine' it.

The issue concerns the fact that same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts in all 50 states, where some states seek to deny gay Americans access to marriage law in violation of the 14th Amendment.

Americans are citizens of the United States first and foremost, residents of the states subordinate to that, including gay Americans. Citizens' civil rights as guaranteed and protected by the Federal Constitution are consequently immune from attack by the states. As a fact of settled, accepted, and fundamental Constitutional jurisprudence the states have no 'authority' whatsoever to 'decide' who will or will not have his civil rights.

You're joking, rght? THe constutional amendments etc that define marriage as between one man and one woman are exactly the issue. Those are exactly the measures that gay activists judges have been striking down. States have the Constitutional authority to decide who is eligible to marry, just as they do who is eligible to get a drivers license or who is eligible to get a gun carry permit. No one has made the argument that states are denying rights to people with misdemeanors when they deny them carry permits. The state is empowered to set criteria. Same with marriage licenses.

States do not have the authority to make laws that conflict with the Constitution or federal law.

Since there is no COnstitutional mention of marriage,nor is is in federal law as applying to states that would appear to be what we call "bullshit."

 

[The Rabbi]

That's true. I cannot explain how it causes hunger in Africa. Or how it causes global warming either. That doesnt mean those things have ever been arguments against "gay marriage." I can tell you that defining marriage is a state power which is being undermined by an activist judiciary. I can tell you that gay marriage is poor public policy because it undermines the purpose of state sponsored marriage to begin with.
The only arguments against those two are Arguments 1 and 2.

You may tell anyone anything you like, but it remains subjective opinion and factually wrong.

The issue has nothing to do with 'defining' marriage; indeed, all parties involved agree as to the definition of marriage and in no way seek to 'redefine' it.

The issue concerns the fact that same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts in all 50 states, where some states seek to deny gay Americans access to marriage law in violation of the 14th Amendment.

Americans are citizens of the United States first and foremost, residents of the states subordinate to that, including gay Americans. Citizens' civil rights as guaranteed and protected by the Federal Constitution are consequently immune from attack by the states. As a fact of settled, accepted, and fundamental Constitutional jurisprudence the states have no 'authority' whatsoever to 'decide' who will or will not have his civil rights.

We can if we decide to carry out what our founding fathers would expect us to do. That is overthrow a lawless Un-Constitutional government. The jury is no longer out on that conclusion

-Geaux

Considering ourselves perpetually subordinate and obedient to the wishes of an 18th century gang of rebels is madness.

No it's not. It's called American and appears you need not apply'

-Geaux

Maybe you don't understand the founders. They would mock the idea that we were here over 200 years later trying to conform to them like they were some sort of gods.

Yeah the Founders would be like for free marijuana and universal college education. And free beer and titties. Right?

 

[Geaux4it]

That's true. I cannot explain how it causes hunger in Africa. Or how it causes global warming either. That doesnt mean those things have ever been arguments against "gay marriage." I can tell you that defining marriage is a state power which is being undermined by an activist judiciary. I can tell you that gay marriage is poor public policy because it undermines the purpose of state sponsored marriage to begin with.
The only arguments against those two are Arguments 1 and 2.

You may tell anyone anything you like, but it remains subjective opinion and factually wrong.

The issue has nothing to do with 'defining' marriage; indeed, all parties involved agree as to the definition of marriage and in no way seek to 'redefine' it.

The issue concerns the fact that same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts in all 50 states, where some states seek to deny gay Americans access to marriage law in violation of the 14th Amendment.

Americans are citizens of the United States first and foremost, residents of the states subordinate to that, including gay Americans. Citizens' civil rights as guaranteed and protected by the Federal Constitution are consequently immune from attack by the states. As a fact of settled, accepted, and fundamental Constitutional jurisprudence the states have no 'authority' whatsoever to 'decide' who will or will not have his civil rights.

We can if we decide to carry out what our founding fathers would expect us to do. That is overthrow a lawless Un-Constitutional government. The jury is no longer out on that conclusion

-Geaux

Considering ourselves perpetually subordinate and obedient to the wishes of an 18th century gang of rebels is madness.

No it's not. It's called American and appears you need not apply'

-Geaux

Maybe you don't understand the founders. They would mock the idea that we were here over 200 years later trying to conform to them like they were some sort of gods.

No, you obviously don't understand what it means to be American.

-Geaux

 

[The Rabbi]

You may tell anyone anything you like, but it remains subjective opinion and factually wrong.

The issue has nothing to do with 'defining' marriage; indeed, all parties involved agree as to the definition of marriage and in no way seek to 'redefine' it.

The issue concerns the fact that same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts in all 50 states, where some states seek to deny gay Americans access to marriage law in violation of the 14th Amendment.

Americans are citizens of the United States first and foremost, residents of the states subordinate to that, including gay Americans. Citizens' civil rights as guaranteed and protected by the Federal Constitution are consequently immune from attack by the states. As a fact of settled, accepted, and fundamental Constitutional jurisprudence the states have no 'authority' whatsoever to 'decide' who will or will not have his civil rights.

We can if we decide to carry out what our founding fathers would expect us to do. That is overthrow a lawless Un-Constitutional government. The jury is no longer out on that conclusion

-Geaux

Considering ourselves perpetually subordinate and obedient to the wishes of an 18th century gang of rebels is madness.

No it's not. It's called American and appears you need not apply'

-Geaux

Maybe you don't understand the founders. They would mock the idea that we were here over 200 years later trying to conform to them like they were some sort of gods.

No, you obviously don't understand what it means to be American.

-Geaux

He understands it. He just hates it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

In other words, Rabbi can't explain how two gay people getting married threatens anyone.

That's true. I cannot explain how it causes hunger in Africa. Or how it causes global warming either. That doesnt mean those things have ever been arguments against "gay marriage." I can tell you that defining marriage is a state power which is being undermined by an activist judiciary. I can tell you that gay marriage is poor public policy because it undermines the purpose of state sponsored marriage to begin with.
The only arguments against those two are Arguments 1 and 2.

You may tell anyone anything you like, but it remains subjective opinion and factually wrong.

The issue has nothing to do with 'defining' marriage; indeed, all parties involved agree as to the definition of marriage and in no way seek to 'redefine' it.

The issue concerns the fact that same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts in all 50 states, where some states seek to deny gay Americans access to marriage law in violation of the 14th Amendment.

Americans are citizens of the United States first and foremost, residents of the states subordinate to that, including gay Americans. Citizens' civil rights as guaranteed and protected by the Federal Constitution are consequently immune from attack by the states. As a fact of settled, accepted, and fundamental Constitutional jurisprudence the states have no 'authority' whatsoever to 'decide' who will or will not have his civil rights.

We can if we decide to carry out what our founding fathers would expect us to do. That is overthrow a lawless Un-Constitutional government. The jury is no longer out on that conclusion

-Geaux

Considering ourselves perpetually subordinate and obedient to the wishes of an 18th century gang of rebels is madness.

No it's not. It's called American and appears you need not apply'

-Geaux

Your belief that America can never be capable of producing a generation that could be smarter or better suited to judge our needs based on current conditions than were some men in the 18th century is more madness.

Conservatives trying to end progress, reverse course, and head back to the 18th century. lol

 

[NYcarbineer]

You may tell anyone anything you like, but it remains subjective opinion and factually wrong.

The issue has nothing to do with 'defining' marriage; indeed, all parties involved agree as to the definition of marriage and in no way seek to 'redefine' it.

The issue concerns the fact that same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts in all 50 states, where some states seek to deny gay Americans access to marriage law in violation of the 14th Amendment.

Americans are citizens of the United States first and foremost, residents of the states subordinate to that, including gay Americans. Citizens' civil rights as guaranteed and protected by the Federal Constitution are consequently immune from attack by the states. As a fact of settled, accepted, and fundamental Constitutional jurisprudence the states have no 'authority' whatsoever to 'decide' who will or will not have his civil rights.

We can if we decide to carry out what our founding fathers would expect us to do. That is overthrow a lawless Un-Constitutional government. The jury is no longer out on that conclusion

-Geaux

Considering ourselves perpetually subordinate and obedient to the wishes of an 18th century gang of rebels is madness.

No it's not. It's called American and appears you need not apply'

-Geaux

Maybe you don't understand the founders. They would mock the idea that we were here over 200 years later trying to conform to them like they were some sort of gods.

No, you obviously don't understand what it means to be American.

-Geaux

Being American is treating the founders as Gods? lol

 

[The Rabbi]

That's true. I cannot explain how it causes hunger in Africa. Or how it causes global warming either. That doesnt mean those things have ever been arguments against "gay marriage." I can tell you that defining marriage is a state power which is being undermined by an activist judiciary. I can tell you that gay marriage is poor public policy because it undermines the purpose of state sponsored marriage to begin with.
The only arguments against those two are Arguments 1 and 2.

You may tell anyone anything you like, but it remains subjective opinion and factually wrong.

The issue has nothing to do with 'defining' marriage; indeed, all parties involved agree as to the definition of marriage and in no way seek to 'redefine' it.

The issue concerns the fact that same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts in all 50 states, where some states seek to deny gay Americans access to marriage law in violation of the 14th Amendment.

Americans are citizens of the United States first and foremost, residents of the states subordinate to that, including gay Americans. Citizens' civil rights as guaranteed and protected by the Federal Constitution are consequently immune from attack by the states. As a fact of settled, accepted, and fundamental Constitutional jurisprudence the states have no 'authority' whatsoever to 'decide' who will or will not have his civil rights.

We can if we decide to carry out what our founding fathers would expect us to do. That is overthrow a lawless Un-Constitutional government. The jury is no longer out on that conclusion

-Geaux

Considering ourselves perpetually subordinate and obedient to the wishes of an 18th century gang of rebels is madness.

No it's not. It's called American and appears you need not apply'

-Geaux

Your belief that America can never be capable of producing a generation that could be smarter or better suited to judge our needs based on current conditions than were some men in the 18th century is more madness.

Conservatives trying to end progress, reverse course, and head back to the 18th century. lol

Red herring argument.
Rabbi Rules!

 

[Geaux4it]

We can if we decide to carry out what our founding fathers would expect us to do. That is overthrow a lawless Un-Constitutional government. The jury is no longer out on that conclusion

-Geaux

Considering ourselves perpetually subordinate and obedient to the wishes of an 18th century gang of rebels is madness.

No it's not. It's called American and appears you need not apply'

-Geaux

Maybe you don't understand the founders. They would mock the idea that we were here over 200 years later trying to conform to them like they were some sort of gods.

No, you obviously don't understand what it means to be American.

-Geaux

He understands it. He just hates it.

I wonder how many generations the leftist here go back? From their actions,. one would think not very far

-Geaux

 

[NYcarbineer]

We can if we decide to carry out what our founding fathers would expect us to do. That is overthrow a lawless Un-Constitutional government. The jury is no longer out on that conclusion

-Geaux

Considering ourselves perpetually subordinate and obedient to the wishes of an 18th century gang of rebels is madness.

No it's not. It's called American and appears you need not apply'

-Geaux

Maybe you don't understand the founders. They would mock the idea that we were here over 200 years later trying to conform to them like they were some sort of gods.

No, you obviously don't understand what it means to be American.

-Geaux

He understands it. He just hates it.

Shall we honor the founders' belief that women shouldn't have the right to vote?

 

[Geaux4it]

We can if we decide to carry out what our founding fathers would expect us to do. That is overthrow a lawless Un-Constitutional government. The jury is no longer out on that conclusion

-Geaux

Considering ourselves perpetually subordinate and obedient to the wishes of an 18th century gang of rebels is madness.

No it's not. It's called American and appears you need not apply'

-Geaux

Maybe you don't understand the founders. They would mock the idea that we were here over 200 years later trying to conform to them like they were some sort of gods.

No, you obviously don't understand what it means to be American.

-Geaux

Being American is treating the founders as Gods? lol

No, being American is exactly opposite what you are.

-Geaux

 

[The Rabbi]

Considering ourselves perpetually subordinate and obedient to the wishes of an 18th century gang of rebels is madness.

No it's not. It's called American and appears you need not apply'

-Geaux

Maybe you don't understand the founders. They would mock the idea that we were here over 200 years later trying to conform to them like they were some sort of gods.

No, you obviously don't understand what it means to be American.

-Geaux

He understands it. He just hates it.

Shall we honor the founders' belief that women shouldn't have the right to vote?

Did things get better or worse after they got that right?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You may tell anyone anything you like, but it remains subjective opinion and factually wrong.

The issue has nothing to do with 'defining' marriage; indeed, all parties involved agree as to the definition of marriage and in no way seek to 'redefine' it.

The issue concerns the fact that same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts in all 50 states, where some states seek to deny gay Americans access to marriage law in violation of the 14th Amendment.

Americans are citizens of the United States first and foremost, residents of the states subordinate to that, including gay Americans. Citizens' civil rights as guaranteed and protected by the Federal Constitution are consequently immune from attack by the states. As a fact of settled, accepted, and fundamental Constitutional jurisprudence the states have no 'authority' whatsoever to 'decide' who will or will not have his civil rights.

We can if we decide to carry out what our founding fathers would expect us to do. That is overthrow a lawless Un-Constitutional government. The jury is no longer out on that conclusion

-Geaux

Considering ourselves perpetually subordinate and obedient to the wishes of an 18th century gang of rebels is madness.

No it's not. It's called American and appears you need not apply'

-Geaux

Maybe you don't understand the founders. They would mock the idea that we were here over 200 years later trying to conform to them like they were some sort of gods.

No, you obviously don't understand what it means to be American.

-Geaux

What it means to be an American is that your rights as a citizen are paramount, not subject to the capricious whims of the ignorant and hateful, nor the inane notion of 'majority rule,' where you don't forfeit your civil rights merely as a consequence of your state of residence, where in fact the states have no authority to 'decide.'

 

[Geaux4it]

We can if we decide to carry out what our founding fathers would expect us to do. That is overthrow a lawless Un-Constitutional government. The jury is no longer out on that conclusion

-Geaux

Considering ourselves perpetually subordinate and obedient to the wishes of an 18th century gang of rebels is madness.

No it's not. It's called American and appears you need not apply'

-Geaux

Maybe you don't understand the founders. They would mock the idea that we were here over 200 years later trying to conform to them like they were some sort of gods.

No, you obviously don't understand what it means to be American.

-Geaux

What it means to be an American is that your rights as a citizen are paramount, not subject to the capricious whims of the ignorant and hateful, nor the inane notion of 'majority rule,' where you don't forfeit your civil rights merely as a consequence of your state of residence, where in fact the states have no authority to 'decide.'

Another failed definition of what it means to be 'American'

-Geaux

 

[The Rabbi]

We can if we decide to carry out what our founding fathers would expect us to do. That is overthrow a lawless Un-Constitutional government. The jury is no longer out on that conclusion

-Geaux

Considering ourselves perpetually subordinate and obedient to the wishes of an 18th century gang of rebels is madness.

No it's not. It's called American and appears you need not apply'

-Geaux

Maybe you don't understand the founders. They would mock the idea that we were here over 200 years later trying to conform to them like they were some sort of gods.

No, you obviously don't understand what it means to be American.

-Geaux

What it means to be an American is that your rights as a citizen are paramount, not subject to the capricious whims of the ignorant and hateful, nor the inane notion of 'majority rule,' where you don't forfeit your civil rights merely as a consequence of your state of residence, where in fact the states have no authority to 'decide.'

Thats why you oppose the Obama Administration killing Americans in Yemen, spying on Americans here, and using IRS data to suppress political opponents?
There isnt an unrestricted right to marriage.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No it's not. It's called American and appears you need not apply'

-Geaux

Maybe you don't understand the founders. They would mock the idea that we were here over 200 years later trying to conform to them like they were some sort of gods.

No, you obviously don't understand what it means to be American.

-Geaux

He understands it. He just hates it.

Shall we honor the founders' belief that women shouldn't have the right to vote?

Did things get better or worse after they got that right?

WTF? lol