Republicans are not for our constitution.

[Ray From Cleveland]

Lots of things aren't said in the US Constitution Ray.

Yeah.........that's kind of the point......

Oxygen and air are not mentioned in the US Constitution. Does this mean the govt can go around denying people oxygen at will?

And just how would they do that? Trust me, if Democrats could, they would.

Come on Ray, these are the same old tired soundbites that have been around for so long. Use your brain for once.

If I did, that would put me one over you, wouldn't it?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Lots of things aren't said in the US Constitution Ray.

Yeah.........that's kind of the point......

Oxygen and air are not mentioned in the US Constitution. Does this mean the govt can go around denying people oxygen at will?

And just how would they do that? Trust me, if Democrats could, they would.

Come on Ray, these are the same old tired soundbites that have been around for so long. Use your brain for once.

If I did, that would put me one over you, wouldn't it?

Ray, the point is there. Whether they could do it or not is not the point of what I'm saying. Can you not see that?

The point is that lots of things aren't said in the US Constitution that are protected.

The 14th Amendment says:

"
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.
"

Now, any person should be able to see that things that aren't mentioned in the Constitution will be protected by the 14th Amendment. Marriage isn't mentioned, but marriage is either a privilege or liberty or equal protection of the laws.

I mean, if a straight person can get certain privileges through marriage to the consenting adult of their choice, then so too should a gay person. Remember, if a gay person gets married to a person of the opposite sex in order to get such privileges like inheritance, then it's fraud.

No Ray, it wouldn't put one over me. Don't try and pretend to be smart Ray. You contradict yourself on a daily basis. You regurgitate what other people say all the time.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Lots of things aren't said in the US Constitution Ray.

Yeah.........that's kind of the point......

Oxygen and air are not mentioned in the US Constitution. Does this mean the govt can go around denying people oxygen at will?

And just how would they do that? Trust me, if Democrats could, they would.

Come on Ray, these are the same old tired soundbites that have been around for so long. Use your brain for once.

If I did, that would put me one over you, wouldn't it?

Ray, the point is there. Whether they could do it or not is not the point of what I'm saying. Can you not see that?

The point is that lots of things aren't said in the US Constitution that are protected.

The 14th Amendment says:

"
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.
"

Now, any person should be able to see that things that aren't mentioned in the Constitution will be protected by the 14th Amendment. Marriage isn't mentioned, but marriage is either a privilege or liberty or equal protection of the laws.

I mean, if a straight person can get certain privileges through marriage to the consenting adult of their choice, then so too should a gay person. Remember, if a gay person gets married to a person of the opposite sex in order to get such privileges like inheritance, then it's fraud.

No Ray, it wouldn't put one over me. Don't try and pretend to be smart Ray. You contradict yourself on a daily basis. You regurgitate what other people say all the time.

Let's talk about the founders for a moment. They didn't include marriage because marriage was a religious rite--not a government provided right.

What the court should have ruled is that government GTF out of marriage and leave it to the church. There should be no government benefits to marriage. But that aside.......

It was not about rights because anything a married couple has by law, the same can be achieved with a good lawyer. It was about rejection. Some of the gay population can't stand being rejected, and their concept is if they can force their marriages upon us, they would then be accepted. Nothing is further from the truth. In fact it had just the opposite affect.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Lots of things aren't said in the US Constitution Ray.

Yeah.........that's kind of the point......

Oxygen and air are not mentioned in the US Constitution. Does this mean the govt can go around denying people oxygen at will?

And just how would they do that? Trust me, if Democrats could, they would.

Come on Ray, these are the same old tired soundbites that have been around for so long. Use your brain for once.

If I did, that would put me one over you, wouldn't it?

Ray, the point is there. Whether they could do it or not is not the point of what I'm saying. Can you not see that?

The point is that lots of things aren't said in the US Constitution that are protected.

The 14th Amendment says:

"
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.
"

Now, any person should be able to see that things that aren't mentioned in the Constitution will be protected by the 14th Amendment. Marriage isn't mentioned, but marriage is either a privilege or liberty or equal protection of the laws.

I mean, if a straight person can get certain privileges through marriage to the consenting adult of their choice, then so too should a gay person. Remember, if a gay person gets married to a person of the opposite sex in order to get such privileges like inheritance, then it's fraud.

No Ray, it wouldn't put one over me. Don't try and pretend to be smart Ray. You contradict yourself on a daily basis. You regurgitate what other people say all the time.

Let's talk about the founders for a moment. They didn't include marriage because marriage was a religious rite--not a government provided right.

What the court should have ruled is that government GTF out of marriage and leave it to the church. There should be no government benefits to marriage. But that aside.......

It was not about rights because anything a married couple has by law, the same can be achieved with a good lawyer. It was about rejection. Some of the gay population can't stand being rejected, and their concept is if they can force their marriages upon us, they would then be accepted. Nothing is further from the truth. In fact it had just the opposite affect.

Why would we talk about the Founders Ray? This is tiring.

We're talking mostly about the 14th Amendment. The Amendment was passed in 1868. This would make a founding father who was 20 at the time of passing of the Constitution in 1789 101 years old. Not many people lived to 101 at that time, and I don't know if any of the Founding Fathers were 20 years old at the time.

Washington died in 1799, a long time before.

What the Founding Fathers did do, if you insist on talking about them, was to introduce Article Five into the Constitution. You do know Article Five, don't you?

Fine, the Founding Fathers SHOULD HAVE SAID "GTF out of marriage". They didn't do this. So, we're not talking what the Founding Fathers should have done. We're talking what they actually did.

 

[Yarddog]

I constantly run across right wingers who claim that conservatives “follow the constitution” and are “for the constitution “.

Nothing but words . Whenever I ask for some real life proof, I get nothing .

I will concede that they are nuts over the 2nd . I’ll give you that .

But as far as the rest of the con? They push agendas to weaken our con freedoms .

Prove me wrong! What con talking points/agendas/ legislation strengthen (non 2nd amendmemt )constitutional rights ?

I think we all believe in this, basic principles of the constitution. (as seen below)

now you seem to be hung up on wanting to burn the flag as a major tenant of your belief, seeing thats like the first thing that was on your mind. If you don't know, there are military people like marines who will actually die, take bullets or bayonettes to protect and keep the flag from falling into enemy hands.... so excuse them and their other American supporters who don't see burning one of the nations symbols as actually 'speech' ... Some people see speech as something you do with your mouth. YET, lots of democrat/ liberals have no problems wanting things they deem as hate speech enforced against.
A lot of this Timmy is a matter of interpretation

• popular sovereignty. the people supply the government with its power.
• republicanism. people get to choose their government leaders (political representatives)
• federalism. power is shared between the government and states.
• limited government. ...
• separation of powers. ...
• checks and balances. ...
• individual rights.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

They follow it as much as the dems.......meaning, either side hates the constitution.

Example ?

It's your thread. How about you show us how Republicans violate the Constitution.

I’ve done so a number of times in this thread .

I’ll do a new one ! “States rights “ . Gop talks Big about states rights. As we speak they are looking to override states wh legal pot, they want to force states to accept others gun licenses , and they want to force oil drilling off the states coasts .

States rights my ass!

What an amazing turnaround. When the brown buffoon was ruling you were all for the heavy hand of govt to strike a state that defied the president's decree.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Lots of things aren't said in the US Constitution Ray.

Yeah.........that's kind of the point......

Oxygen and air are not mentioned in the US Constitution. Does this mean the govt can go around denying people oxygen at will?

And just how would they do that? Trust me, if Democrats could, they would.

Come on Ray, these are the same old tired soundbites that have been around for so long. Use your brain for once.

If I did, that would put me one over you, wouldn't it?

Ray, the point is there. Whether they could do it or not is not the point of what I'm saying. Can you not see that?

The point is that lots of things aren't said in the US Constitution that are protected.

The 14th Amendment says:

"
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.
"

Now, any person should be able to see that things that aren't mentioned in the Constitution will be protected by the 14th Amendment. Marriage isn't mentioned, but marriage is either a privilege or liberty or equal protection of the laws.

I mean, if a straight person can get certain privileges through marriage to the consenting adult of their choice, then so too should a gay person. Remember, if a gay person gets married to a person of the opposite sex in order to get such privileges like inheritance, then it's fraud.

No Ray, it wouldn't put one over me. Don't try and pretend to be smart Ray. You contradict yourself on a daily basis. You regurgitate what other people say all the time.

Let's talk about the founders for a moment. They didn't include marriage because marriage was a religious rite--not a government provided right.

What the court should have ruled is that government GTF out of marriage and leave it to the church. There should be no government benefits to marriage. But that aside.......

It was not about rights because anything a married couple has by law, the same can be achieved with a good lawyer. It was about rejection. Some of the gay population can't stand being rejected, and their concept is if they can force their marriages upon us, they would then be accepted. Nothing is further from the truth. In fact it had just the opposite affect.

Why would we talk about the Founders Ray? This is tiring.

We're talking mostly about the 14th Amendment. The Amendment was passed in 1868. This would make a founding father who was 20 at the time of passing of the Constitution in 1789 101 years old. Not many people lived to 101 at that time, and I don't know if any of the Founding Fathers were 20 years old at the time.

Washington died in 1799, a long time before.

What the Founding Fathers did do, if you insist on talking about them, was to introduce Article Five into the Constitution. You do know Article Five, don't you?

Fine, the Founding Fathers SHOULD HAVE SAID "GTF out of marriage". They didn't do this. So, we're not talking what the Founding Fathers should have done. We're talking what they actually did.

I didn't say the founding fathers should have said GTF our of marriage, I said the Supreme Court should have when the issue was brought about.

What I did say about the founding fathers is that they didn't even mention marriage in the Constitution because it was not to be a federal government issue.

The US Constitution was written to keep the federal government out of our lives--not have it included in every aspect of it.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Lots of things aren't said in the US Constitution Ray.

Yeah.........that's kind of the point......

Oxygen and air are not mentioned in the US Constitution. Does this mean the govt can go around denying people oxygen at will?

And just how would they do that? Trust me, if Democrats could, they would.

Come on Ray, these are the same old tired soundbites that have been around for so long. Use your brain for once.

If I did, that would put me one over you, wouldn't it?

Ray, the point is there. Whether they could do it or not is not the point of what I'm saying. Can you not see that?

The point is that lots of things aren't said in the US Constitution that are protected.

The 14th Amendment says:

"
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.
"

Now, any person should be able to see that things that aren't mentioned in the Constitution will be protected by the 14th Amendment. Marriage isn't mentioned, but marriage is either a privilege or liberty or equal protection of the laws.

I mean, if a straight person can get certain privileges through marriage to the consenting adult of their choice, then so too should a gay person. Remember, if a gay person gets married to a person of the opposite sex in order to get such privileges like inheritance, then it's fraud.

No Ray, it wouldn't put one over me. Don't try and pretend to be smart Ray. You contradict yourself on a daily basis. You regurgitate what other people say all the time.

Let's talk about the founders for a moment. They didn't include marriage because marriage was a religious rite--not a government provided right.

What the court should have ruled is that government GTF out of marriage and leave it to the church. There should be no government benefits to marriage. But that aside.......

It was not about rights because anything a married couple has by law, the same can be achieved with a good lawyer. It was about rejection. Some of the gay population can't stand being rejected, and their concept is if they can force their marriages upon us, they would then be accepted. Nothing is further from the truth. In fact it had just the opposite affect.

Why would we talk about the Founders Ray? This is tiring.

We're talking mostly about the 14th Amendment. The Amendment was passed in 1868. This would make a founding father who was 20 at the time of passing of the Constitution in 1789 101 years old. Not many people lived to 101 at that time, and I don't know if any of the Founding Fathers were 20 years old at the time.

Washington died in 1799, a long time before.

What the Founding Fathers did do, if you insist on talking about them, was to introduce Article Five into the Constitution. You do know Article Five, don't you?

Fine, the Founding Fathers SHOULD HAVE SAID "GTF out of marriage". They didn't do this. So, we're not talking what the Founding Fathers should have done. We're talking what they actually did.

I didn't say the founding fathers should have said GTF our of marriage, I said the Supreme Court should have when the issue was brought about.

What I did say about the founding fathers is that they didn't even mention marriage in the Constitution because it was not to be a federal government issue.

The US Constitution was written to keep the federal government out of our lives--not have it included in every aspect of it.

You said we were talking about the Founding Fathers. The courts can only rule on what is in front of them. They have a certain amount of leeway, but they can't just pluck stuff from mid air.

Yes, the Founding Fathers didn't mention marriage. Maybe you didn't bother to read the bit about the 14th Amendment that wasn't written by the Founding Fathers.

So, if the Constitution was written to keep the govt out of our lives, then gay marriage should be on the same status as every other marriage, be that the govt stays out of it or not. Don't you agree?

Isn't that what the 14th Amendment is about? Equality of the laws?

 

[Lysistrata]

Lots of things aren't said in the US Constitution Ray.

Yeah.........that's kind of the point......

Oxygen and air are not mentioned in the US Constitution. Does this mean the govt can go around denying people oxygen at will?

And just how would they do that? Trust me, if Democrats could, they would.

Come on Ray, these are the same old tired soundbites that have been around for so long. Use your brain for once.

If I did, that would put me one over you, wouldn't it?

Ray, the point is there. Whether they could do it or not is not the point of what I'm saying. Can you not see that?

The point is that lots of things aren't said in the US Constitution that are protected.

The 14th Amendment says:

"
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.
"

Now, any person should be able to see that things that aren't mentioned in the Constitution will be protected by the 14th Amendment. Marriage isn't mentioned, but marriage is either a privilege or liberty or equal protection of the laws.

I mean, if a straight person can get certain privileges through marriage to the consenting adult of their choice, then so too should a gay person. Remember, if a gay person gets married to a person of the opposite sex in order to get such privileges like inheritance, then it's fraud.

No Ray, it wouldn't put one over me. Don't try and pretend to be smart Ray. You contradict yourself on a daily basis. You regurgitate what other people say all the time.

Thank you so much for reminding us of the Fourteenth Amendment, the one that unites us all as Americans under the law and gives us a rule to live by as a nation.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Lots of things aren't said in the US Constitution Ray.

Yeah.........that's kind of the point......

Oxygen and air are not mentioned in the US Constitution. Does this mean the govt can go around denying people oxygen at will?

And just how would they do that? Trust me, if Democrats could, they would.

Come on Ray, these are the same old tired soundbites that have been around for so long. Use your brain for once.

If I did, that would put me one over you, wouldn't it?

Ray, the point is there. Whether they could do it or not is not the point of what I'm saying. Can you not see that?

The point is that lots of things aren't said in the US Constitution that are protected.

The 14th Amendment says:

"
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.
"

Now, any person should be able to see that things that aren't mentioned in the Constitution will be protected by the 14th Amendment. Marriage isn't mentioned, but marriage is either a privilege or liberty or equal protection of the laws.

I mean, if a straight person can get certain privileges through marriage to the consenting adult of their choice, then so too should a gay person. Remember, if a gay person gets married to a person of the opposite sex in order to get such privileges like inheritance, then it's fraud.

No Ray, it wouldn't put one over me. Don't try and pretend to be smart Ray. You contradict yourself on a daily basis. You regurgitate what other people say all the time.

Thank you so much for reminding us of the Fourteenth Amendment, the one that unites us all as Americans under the law and gives us a rule to live by as a nation.

Well, if we say it a million times, Ray might find it impossible to ignore. Before that, he'll evade all day long.

 

[Lysistrata]

Lots of things aren't said in the US Constitution Ray.

Yeah.........that's kind of the point......

Oxygen and air are not mentioned in the US Constitution. Does this mean the govt can go around denying people oxygen at will?

And just how would they do that? Trust me, if Democrats could, they would.

Come on Ray, these are the same old tired soundbites that have been around for so long. Use your brain for once.

If I did, that would put me one over you, wouldn't it?

Ray, the point is there. Whether they could do it or not is not the point of what I'm saying. Can you not see that?

The point is that lots of things aren't said in the US Constitution that are protected.

The 14th Amendment says:

"
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.
"

Now, any person should be able to see that things that aren't mentioned in the Constitution will be protected by the 14th Amendment. Marriage isn't mentioned, but marriage is either a privilege or liberty or equal protection of the laws.

I mean, if a straight person can get certain privileges through marriage to the consenting adult of their choice, then so too should a gay person. Remember, if a gay person gets married to a person of the opposite sex in order to get such privileges like inheritance, then it's fraud.

No Ray, it wouldn't put one over me. Don't try and pretend to be smart Ray. You contradict yourself on a daily basis. You regurgitate what other people say all the time.

Let's talk about the founders for a moment. They didn't include marriage because marriage was a religious rite--not a government provided right.

What the court should have ruled is that government GTF out of marriage and leave it to the church. There should be no government benefits to marriage. But that aside.......

It was not about rights because anything a married couple has by law, the same can be achieved with a good lawyer. It was about rejection. Some of the gay population can't stand being rejected, and their concept is if they can force their marriages upon us, they would then be accepted. Nothing is further from the truth. In fact it had just the opposite affect.

Anyone who is married "forces" their marriage on the rest of us. I don't think much of the "marriages" between the fundie so-called "Christian" white boys and the poor women that they can demand sex from at will, no matter how much some fundie preacher-creature has "prayed" over them. I don't go much for heterosexuality in its cheapened, prostituted state.

 

[Correll]

Who is trying to repeal the 14th amendment? There is a process to become a citizen for those who come here legally. Showing a photo ID does not prevent one from voting.

Voter suppression is a Republican initiative
Make it more difficult to vote, Strict ID standards, limit voter hours, selectively reduce the number of voting machines, cut back early voting

A photo ID is not a strict standard voter hours are generally 7am to 7pm 12 hours I have seen no one reduce the number of voting machines you might have to cut back early voting if you don’t have enough people to work at polls.

Almost 95% of Americans have an acceptable photo ID. Determining what is acceptable is a way Republicans suppress the vote.
A gun permit is acceptable while a student ID is not
Drivers licenses are acceptable, but many legitimate voters in urban areas do not drive

5% not having ID is not that big a deal until you realize many elections are won by 1-2%
If most of the people without an acceptable ID vote Democrat, Voter ID laws are an effective means of suppression

I assume you pulled those numbers out of your ass?

AND I note you just ask "if" those without id are democrat, you don't even claim that it is true.


And based on that load of shit, you wan to slander the GOP as being "not for our constitution"?

Getting a photo ID so you can vote is easy. Unless you’re poor, black, Latino or elderly.

I'm not about to give a dollar to the ******* Washington Post.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Lots of things aren't said in the US Constitution Ray.

Yeah.........that's kind of the point......

Oxygen and air are not mentioned in the US Constitution. Does this mean the govt can go around denying people oxygen at will?

And just how would they do that? Trust me, if Democrats could, they would.

Come on Ray, these are the same old tired soundbites that have been around for so long. Use your brain for once.

If I did, that would put me one over you, wouldn't it?

Ray, the point is there. Whether they could do it or not is not the point of what I'm saying. Can you not see that?

The point is that lots of things aren't said in the US Constitution that are protected.

The 14th Amendment says:

"
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.
"

Now, any person should be able to see that things that aren't mentioned in the Constitution will be protected by the 14th Amendment. Marriage isn't mentioned, but marriage is either a privilege or liberty or equal protection of the laws.

I mean, if a straight person can get certain privileges through marriage to the consenting adult of their choice, then so too should a gay person. Remember, if a gay person gets married to a person of the opposite sex in order to get such privileges like inheritance, then it's fraud.

No Ray, it wouldn't put one over me. Don't try and pretend to be smart Ray. You contradict yourself on a daily basis. You regurgitate what other people say all the time.

Let's talk about the founders for a moment. They didn't include marriage because marriage was a religious rite--not a government provided right.

What the court should have ruled is that government GTF out of marriage and leave it to the church. There should be no government benefits to marriage. But that aside.......

It was not about rights because anything a married couple has by law, the same can be achieved with a good lawyer. It was about rejection. Some of the gay population can't stand being rejected, and their concept is if they can force their marriages upon us, they would then be accepted. Nothing is further from the truth. In fact it had just the opposite affect.

Anyone who is married "forces" their marriage on the rest of us. I don't think much of the "marriages" between the fundie so-called "Christian" white boys and the poor women that they can demand sex from at will, no matter how much some fundie preacher-creature has "prayed" over them. I don't go much for heterosexuality in its cheapened, prostituted state.

Christians can demand sex at will? When did that start?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yeah.........that's kind of the point......

And just how would they do that? Trust me, if Democrats could, they would.

If I did, that would put me one over you, wouldn't it?

Ray, the point is there. Whether they could do it or not is not the point of what I'm saying. Can you not see that?

The point is that lots of things aren't said in the US Constitution that are protected.

The 14th Amendment says:

"
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.
"

Now, any person should be able to see that things that aren't mentioned in the Constitution will be protected by the 14th Amendment. Marriage isn't mentioned, but marriage is either a privilege or liberty or equal protection of the laws.

I mean, if a straight person can get certain privileges through marriage to the consenting adult of their choice, then so too should a gay person. Remember, if a gay person gets married to a person of the opposite sex in order to get such privileges like inheritance, then it's fraud.

No Ray, it wouldn't put one over me. Don't try and pretend to be smart Ray. You contradict yourself on a daily basis. You regurgitate what other people say all the time.

Let's talk about the founders for a moment. They didn't include marriage because marriage was a religious rite--not a government provided right.

What the court should have ruled is that government GTF out of marriage and leave it to the church. There should be no government benefits to marriage. But that aside.......

It was not about rights because anything a married couple has by law, the same can be achieved with a good lawyer. It was about rejection. Some of the gay population can't stand being rejected, and their concept is if they can force their marriages upon us, they would then be accepted. Nothing is further from the truth. In fact it had just the opposite affect.

Why would we talk about the Founders Ray? This is tiring.

We're talking mostly about the 14th Amendment. The Amendment was passed in 1868. This would make a founding father who was 20 at the time of passing of the Constitution in 1789 101 years old. Not many people lived to 101 at that time, and I don't know if any of the Founding Fathers were 20 years old at the time.

Washington died in 1799, a long time before.

What the Founding Fathers did do, if you insist on talking about them, was to introduce Article Five into the Constitution. You do know Article Five, don't you?

Fine, the Founding Fathers SHOULD HAVE SAID "GTF out of marriage". They didn't do this. So, we're not talking what the Founding Fathers should have done. We're talking what they actually did.

I didn't say the founding fathers should have said GTF our of marriage, I said the Supreme Court should have when the issue was brought about.

What I did say about the founding fathers is that they didn't even mention marriage in the Constitution because it was not to be a federal government issue.

The US Constitution was written to keep the federal government out of our lives--not have it included in every aspect of it.

You said we were talking about the Founding Fathers. The courts can only rule on what is in front of them. They have a certain amount of leeway, but they can't just pluck stuff from mid air.

Yes, the Founding Fathers didn't mention marriage. Maybe you didn't bother to read the bit about the 14th Amendment that wasn't written by the Founding Fathers.

So, if the Constitution was written to keep the govt out of our lives, then gay marriage should be on the same status as every other marriage, be that the govt stays out of it or not. Don't you agree?

Isn't that what the 14th Amendment is about? Equality of the laws?

No, that's not what it's about. The problem with marriage is government did get involved with it. Because of the ruling (you can't' specify gay or straight marriage) now any people can get married. Down the road, if somebody wants to marry his sister, they can. If a man wants to marry his daughter, he can. Thanks to that ruling, marriage is now a complete joke thanks to the gays.

 

[Lysistrata]

Lots of things aren't said in the US Constitution Ray.

Yeah.........that's kind of the point......

Oxygen and air are not mentioned in the US Constitution. Does this mean the govt can go around denying people oxygen at will?

And just how would they do that? Trust me, if Democrats could, they would.

Come on Ray, these are the same old tired soundbites that have been around for so long. Use your brain for once.

If I did, that would put me one over you, wouldn't it?

Ray, the point is there. Whether they could do it or not is not the point of what I'm saying. Can you not see that?

The point is that lots of things aren't said in the US Constitution that are protected.

The 14th Amendment says:

"
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.
"

Now, any person should be able to see that things that aren't mentioned in the Constitution will be protected by the 14th Amendment. Marriage isn't mentioned, but marriage is either a privilege or liberty or equal protection of the laws.

I mean, if a straight person can get certain privileges through marriage to the consenting adult of their choice, then so too should a gay person. Remember, if a gay person gets married to a person of the opposite sex in order to get such privileges like inheritance, then it's fraud.

No Ray, it wouldn't put one over me. Don't try and pretend to be smart Ray. You contradict yourself on a daily basis. You regurgitate what other people say all the time.

Let's talk about the founders for a moment. They didn't include marriage because marriage was a religious rite--not a government provided right.

What the court should have ruled is that government GTF out of marriage and leave it to the church. There should be no government benefits to marriage. But that aside.......

It was not about rights because anything a married couple has by law, the same can be achieved with a good lawyer. It was about rejection. Some of the gay population can't stand being rejected, and their concept is if they can force their marriages upon us, they would then be accepted. Nothing is further from the truth. In fact it had just the opposite affect.

Anyone who is married "forces" their marriage on the rest of us. I don't think much of the "marriages" between the fundie so-called "Christian" white boys and the poor women that they can demand sex from at will, no matter how much some fundie preacher-creature has "prayed" over them. I don't go much for heterosexuality in its cheapened, prostituted state.

Christians can demand sex at will? When did that start?

The phony Christian "preachers." There are perverted sects within Christianity that teach men to dishonor and disrespect their wives and teaches women that their husbands, not them, own their bodies. Heterosexual sexual perversion abounds in fundie "Christianity."

8 steps to confront your wife’s sexual refusal
I Let My Husband Rape Me, and Here’s Why...


A lot of this shit comes from paul, a known woman-hater who never knew Jesus of Nazareth. Men from these perverted phony "Christian" cults are brought up to think that sex is their right, whenever they please, whatever they please, and that women's bodies belong to them. What a disgrace to humanity, to heterosexuality, and to all that is holy.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Ray, the point is there. Whether they could do it or not is not the point of what I'm saying. Can you not see that?

The point is that lots of things aren't said in the US Constitution that are protected.

The 14th Amendment says:

"
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.
"

Now, any person should be able to see that things that aren't mentioned in the Constitution will be protected by the 14th Amendment. Marriage isn't mentioned, but marriage is either a privilege or liberty or equal protection of the laws.

I mean, if a straight person can get certain privileges through marriage to the consenting adult of their choice, then so too should a gay person. Remember, if a gay person gets married to a person of the opposite sex in order to get such privileges like inheritance, then it's fraud.

No Ray, it wouldn't put one over me. Don't try and pretend to be smart Ray. You contradict yourself on a daily basis. You regurgitate what other people say all the time.

Let's talk about the founders for a moment. They didn't include marriage because marriage was a religious rite--not a government provided right.

What the court should have ruled is that government GTF out of marriage and leave it to the church. There should be no government benefits to marriage. But that aside.......

It was not about rights because anything a married couple has by law, the same can be achieved with a good lawyer. It was about rejection. Some of the gay population can't stand being rejected, and their concept is if they can force their marriages upon us, they would then be accepted. Nothing is further from the truth. In fact it had just the opposite affect.

Why would we talk about the Founders Ray? This is tiring.

We're talking mostly about the 14th Amendment. The Amendment was passed in 1868. This would make a founding father who was 20 at the time of passing of the Constitution in 1789 101 years old. Not many people lived to 101 at that time, and I don't know if any of the Founding Fathers were 20 years old at the time.

Washington died in 1799, a long time before.

What the Founding Fathers did do, if you insist on talking about them, was to introduce Article Five into the Constitution. You do know Article Five, don't you?

Fine, the Founding Fathers SHOULD HAVE SAID "GTF out of marriage". They didn't do this. So, we're not talking what the Founding Fathers should have done. We're talking what they actually did.

I didn't say the founding fathers should have said GTF our of marriage, I said the Supreme Court should have when the issue was brought about.

What I did say about the founding fathers is that they didn't even mention marriage in the Constitution because it was not to be a federal government issue.

The US Constitution was written to keep the federal government out of our lives--not have it included in every aspect of it.

You said we were talking about the Founding Fathers. The courts can only rule on what is in front of them. They have a certain amount of leeway, but they can't just pluck stuff from mid air.

Yes, the Founding Fathers didn't mention marriage. Maybe you didn't bother to read the bit about the 14th Amendment that wasn't written by the Founding Fathers.

So, if the Constitution was written to keep the govt out of our lives, then gay marriage should be on the same status as every other marriage, be that the govt stays out of it or not. Don't you agree?

Isn't that what the 14th Amendment is about? Equality of the laws?

No, that's not what it's about. The problem with marriage is government did get involved with it. Because of the ruling (you can't' specify gay or straight marriage) now any people can get married. Down the road, if somebody wants to marry his sister, they can. If a man wants to marry his daughter, he can. Thanks to that ruling, marriage is now a complete joke thanks to the gays.

No, everything you've said seems to come out of the "Tell them bullshit, they won't care" book of politics Ray.

Your argument is basically, **** gay people, if gay people can get married, someone can marry their sister. Bullshit. It's incest and it's harmful to human beings. Gay marriage isn't.

Marriage wasn't a complete joke before? ******* hell Ray, where do you stick your head? In the Sahara? 50% of marriages end in divorce. The US President has been married THREE TIMES and has cheated on his wives. You people elected such a person.

It's called compartmentalization Ray. You come out one one piece of shit that you think makes your argument. Then you say something completely contradictory the next minute, and you don't even care. You have no fundamental principles. If they tell you to think it, you think it.

 

[Kondor3]

I constantly run across right wingers who claim that conservatives “follow the constitution” and are “for the constitution “.

Nothing but words . Whenever I ask for some real life proof, I get nothing .

I will concede that they are nuts over the 2nd . I’ll give you that .

But as far as the rest of the con? They push agendas to weaken our con freedoms .

Prove me wrong! What con talking points/agendas/ legislation strengthen (non 2nd amendmemt )constitutional rights ?

Both sides are full of $hit clean up to their eyeballs.

Both sides.

Including yours.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yeah.........that's kind of the point......

And just how would they do that? Trust me, if Democrats could, they would.

If I did, that would put me one over you, wouldn't it?

Ray, the point is there. Whether they could do it or not is not the point of what I'm saying. Can you not see that?

The point is that lots of things aren't said in the US Constitution that are protected.

The 14th Amendment says:

"
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.
"

Now, any person should be able to see that things that aren't mentioned in the Constitution will be protected by the 14th Amendment. Marriage isn't mentioned, but marriage is either a privilege or liberty or equal protection of the laws.

I mean, if a straight person can get certain privileges through marriage to the consenting adult of their choice, then so too should a gay person. Remember, if a gay person gets married to a person of the opposite sex in order to get such privileges like inheritance, then it's fraud.

No Ray, it wouldn't put one over me. Don't try and pretend to be smart Ray. You contradict yourself on a daily basis. You regurgitate what other people say all the time.

Let's talk about the founders for a moment. They didn't include marriage because marriage was a religious rite--not a government provided right.

What the court should have ruled is that government GTF out of marriage and leave it to the church. There should be no government benefits to marriage. But that aside.......

It was not about rights because anything a married couple has by law, the same can be achieved with a good lawyer. It was about rejection. Some of the gay population can't stand being rejected, and their concept is if they can force their marriages upon us, they would then be accepted. Nothing is further from the truth. In fact it had just the opposite affect.

Anyone who is married "forces" their marriage on the rest of us. I don't think much of the "marriages" between the fundie so-called "Christian" white boys and the poor women that they can demand sex from at will, no matter how much some fundie preacher-creature has "prayed" over them. I don't go much for heterosexuality in its cheapened, prostituted state.

Christians can demand sex at will? When did that start?

The phony Christian "preachers." There are perverted sects within Christianity that teach men to dishonor and disrespect their wives and teaches women that their husbands, not them, own their bodies. Heterosexual sexual perversion abounds in fundie "Christianity."

8 steps to confront your wife’s sexual refusal
I Let My Husband Rape Me, and Here’s Why...


A lot of this shit comes from paul, a known woman-hater who never knew Jesus of Nazareth. Men from these perverted phony "Christian" cults are brought up to think that sex is their right, whenever they please, whatever they please, and that women's bodies belong to them. What a disgrace to humanity, to heterosexuality, and to all that is holy.

Yeah, you'd think that God made humans and he gave them sexual organs AND a desire to ****.... wait, no he didn't, because he doesn't even exist.

 

[Lysistrata]

Ray, the point is there. Whether they could do it or not is not the point of what I'm saying. Can you not see that?

The point is that lots of things aren't said in the US Constitution that are protected.

The 14th Amendment says:

"
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.
"

Now, any person should be able to see that things that aren't mentioned in the Constitution will be protected by the 14th Amendment. Marriage isn't mentioned, but marriage is either a privilege or liberty or equal protection of the laws.

I mean, if a straight person can get certain privileges through marriage to the consenting adult of their choice, then so too should a gay person. Remember, if a gay person gets married to a person of the opposite sex in order to get such privileges like inheritance, then it's fraud.

No Ray, it wouldn't put one over me. Don't try and pretend to be smart Ray. You contradict yourself on a daily basis. You regurgitate what other people say all the time.

Let's talk about the founders for a moment. They didn't include marriage because marriage was a religious rite--not a government provided right.

What the court should have ruled is that government GTF out of marriage and leave it to the church. There should be no government benefits to marriage. But that aside.......

It was not about rights because anything a married couple has by law, the same can be achieved with a good lawyer. It was about rejection. Some of the gay population can't stand being rejected, and their concept is if they can force their marriages upon us, they would then be accepted. Nothing is further from the truth. In fact it had just the opposite affect.

Why would we talk about the Founders Ray? This is tiring.

We're talking mostly about the 14th Amendment. The Amendment was passed in 1868. This would make a founding father who was 20 at the time of passing of the Constitution in 1789 101 years old. Not many people lived to 101 at that time, and I don't know if any of the Founding Fathers were 20 years old at the time.

Washington died in 1799, a long time before.

What the Founding Fathers did do, if you insist on talking about them, was to introduce Article Five into the Constitution. You do know Article Five, don't you?

Fine, the Founding Fathers SHOULD HAVE SAID "GTF out of marriage". They didn't do this. So, we're not talking what the Founding Fathers should have done. We're talking what they actually did.

I didn't say the founding fathers should have said GTF our of marriage, I said the Supreme Court should have when the issue was brought about.

What I did say about the founding fathers is that they didn't even mention marriage in the Constitution because it was not to be a federal government issue.

The US Constitution was written to keep the federal government out of our lives--not have it included in every aspect of it.

You said we were talking about the Founding Fathers. The courts can only rule on what is in front of them. They have a certain amount of leeway, but they can't just pluck stuff from mid air.

Yes, the Founding Fathers didn't mention marriage. Maybe you didn't bother to read the bit about the 14th Amendment that wasn't written by the Founding Fathers.

So, if the Constitution was written to keep the govt out of our lives, then gay marriage should be on the same status as every other marriage, be that the govt stays out of it or not. Don't you agree?

Isn't that what the 14th Amendment is about? Equality of the laws?

No, that's not what it's about. The problem with marriage is government did get involved with it. Because of the ruling (you can't' specify gay or straight marriage) now any people can get married. Down the road, if somebody wants to marry his sister, they can. If a man wants to marry his daughter, he can. Thanks to that ruling, marriage is now a complete joke thanks to the gays.

What bullshit! The incest laws remain in place, and there does not seem to be any outcry to repeal them. Government has been involved in marriage for centuries. Don't you know that you have to have a license from the state? Are you saying that all existing marriages are now "jokes" just because people of the same sex can now marry? Do you want to go to your parents and grandparents and tell them that their relationship is a "joke"? Civil marriage has been with us for thousands of years and affords privileges within civil law. What the various religions wish to do with it is their own business.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Let's talk about the founders for a moment. They didn't include marriage because marriage was a religious rite--not a government provided right.

What the court should have ruled is that government GTF out of marriage and leave it to the church. There should be no government benefits to marriage. But that aside.......

It was not about rights because anything a married couple has by law, the same can be achieved with a good lawyer. It was about rejection. Some of the gay population can't stand being rejected, and their concept is if they can force their marriages upon us, they would then be accepted. Nothing is further from the truth. In fact it had just the opposite affect.

Why would we talk about the Founders Ray? This is tiring.

We're talking mostly about the 14th Amendment. The Amendment was passed in 1868. This would make a founding father who was 20 at the time of passing of the Constitution in 1789 101 years old. Not many people lived to 101 at that time, and I don't know if any of the Founding Fathers were 20 years old at the time.

Washington died in 1799, a long time before.

What the Founding Fathers did do, if you insist on talking about them, was to introduce Article Five into the Constitution. You do know Article Five, don't you?

Fine, the Founding Fathers SHOULD HAVE SAID "GTF out of marriage". They didn't do this. So, we're not talking what the Founding Fathers should have done. We're talking what they actually did.

I didn't say the founding fathers should have said GTF our of marriage, I said the Supreme Court should have when the issue was brought about.

What I did say about the founding fathers is that they didn't even mention marriage in the Constitution because it was not to be a federal government issue.

The US Constitution was written to keep the federal government out of our lives--not have it included in every aspect of it.

You said we were talking about the Founding Fathers. The courts can only rule on what is in front of them. They have a certain amount of leeway, but they can't just pluck stuff from mid air.

Yes, the Founding Fathers didn't mention marriage. Maybe you didn't bother to read the bit about the 14th Amendment that wasn't written by the Founding Fathers.

So, if the Constitution was written to keep the govt out of our lives, then gay marriage should be on the same status as every other marriage, be that the govt stays out of it or not. Don't you agree?

Isn't that what the 14th Amendment is about? Equality of the laws?

No, that's not what it's about. The problem with marriage is government did get involved with it. Because of the ruling (you can't' specify gay or straight marriage) now any people can get married. Down the road, if somebody wants to marry his sister, they can. If a man wants to marry his daughter, he can. Thanks to that ruling, marriage is now a complete joke thanks to the gays.

What bullshit! The incest laws remain in place, and there does not seem to be any outcry to repeal them. Government has been involved in marriage for centuries. Don't you know that you have to have a license from the state? Are you saying that all existing marriages are now "jokes" just because people of the same sex can now marry? Do you want to go to your parents and grandparents and tell them that their relationship is a "joke"? Civil marriage has been with us for thousands of years and affords privileges within civil law. What the various religions wish to do with it is their own business.

Yes all marriages are now jokes because fags can marry now, it's meaningless.