Supreme Court justices RIP ruling forcing states to recognize same-sex marriages - 'Threat To Religious Freedom!'

[emilynghiem]

gibberish!

And that's what the opposite ideology thinks of your beliefs in using Govt and Courts to create rights. From the belief that rights naturally exist, and the people agree on them and use either Constitutional Conventions to establish Rights if these are nationally recognized or use State /

gibberish!

 

[emilynghiem]

And that's what the opposite ideology thinks of your beliefs in using Govt to "establish LGBT beliefs" and Courts to create rights. Instead of keeping beliefs out of Govt, and recognizing that rights we do have naturally exist, where the people must agree on them to form contracts and laws by consent, using either Constitutional Conventions to establish Constitutional Rights nationally recognized or use State Legislatures to pass local laws that apply to people on that level.

^ Both sides have the right to reject each other's beliefs about Govt as "gibberish".

So the Golden Rule of Equal Justice applies to you as well: If you don't have to accept and be under the other ideology and approach to Govt, neither can you impose your ideology that marriage rights and LGBT rights depend on Govt.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

And that's what the opposite ideology thinks of your beliefs in using Govt and Courts to create rights. From the belief that rights naturally exist, and the people agree on them and use either Constitutional Conventions to establish Rights if these are nationally recognized or use State /

Your problem is that you are a Constitutionalist. Most people are not . It is much more widely accepted that there is far more to the Constitution than the enumerated rights. In the case of same sex marriage, the courts did not invent or create a right. They applied the existing rights of due process and equal protection under the law to an issue that was unforseen in the past. You can't expect gays to wait for equal rightsuntil a constitutional convention can be called with an uncertain outcome, or an amendment passed

I find it interesting that all of you Constitutionalists, originalists and textualists all epouse the same conservative world view and use your narrow interpretation of the Constitution as an excuse to thwart progress.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

^ Both sides have the right to reject each other's beliefs about Govt as "gibberish".

So the Golden Rule of Equal Justice applies to you as well: If you don't have to accept and be under the other ideology and approach to Govt, neither can you impose your ideology that marriage rights and LGBT rights depend on Govt.

Except that those of us who advocate for things like gay rights and marriage just want to extend that same rights that others have to LGBT people inorder to make their lives better while taking nothing away fron anybody else. That is not imposing idelogy on anyone because, while some people may not like it, it will not change their lives at all

On the other hand, the ideology of those who want to restrict rights are indeed imposing that view in a very real and tangible way such as by not allowing certain people to marry. So no, your golden rule does not work. The compeeting views are not equal in terms of the effects on the lives of people. Stop hiding behind your Constitutionalism inorder to promote inequality. No. There are not"fine people on both sides"

 

[Indeependent]

Your problem is that you are a Constitutionalist. Most people are not . It is much more widely accepted that there is far more to the Constitution than the enumerated rights. In the case of same sex marriage, the courts did not invent or create a right. They applied the existing rights of due process and equal protection under the law to an issue that was unforseen in the past. You can't expect gays to wait for equal rightsuntil a constitutional convention can be called with an uncertain outcome, or an amendment passed

I find it interesting that all of you Constitutionalists, originalists and textualists all epouse the same conservative world view and use your narrow interpretation of the Constitution as an excuse to thwart progress.

How can most people be Constitutionalists if they have no idea what's in the USC?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

How can most people be Constitutionalists if they have no idea what's in the USC?

I said most people are not. Have an adullt help you with your reading skills

And clearly you do not understand what a Constitutionalist is

 

[Indeependent]

I said most people are not. Have an adullt help you with your reading skills

And clearly you do not understand what a Constitutionalist is

I quoted you, schmuck.
Every LibTard here claims to be a Constitutionalist because they are mentally ill and thinks words, phrases and sentences mean what they don't mean.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I quoted you, schmuck.
Every LibTard here claims to be a Constitutionalist because they are mentally ill and thinks words, phrases and sentences mean what they don't mean.

Holy shit!! You quoted me? Go read it again....slowly. Get help if you must. And again prove that you have no ******* idea what a Constitutionalist is. Have your special ed teacher help you to look it up.

I am not a Constitutionalist emilynghiem is a constitutionalist

 

[sparky]

Have your special ed teacher help you to look it up

well anyone can PP>>>>


What is an example of a constitutionalist?

The definition of constitutionalism is being ruled by basic standards and ideals which are consistent with an overriding rule of law or ethics. An example of constitutionalism is federal laws of the United States government which are consistent with the U.S. Constitution.

&&&&&&&&&&&&


What is an American constitutionalist?

Constitutionalism in the United States is a basic value espoused by political parties, activist groups and individuals across a wide range of the political spectrum, that the powers of federal, state and local governments are limited by the Constitution of the United States and that the civil and political rights of ...

&&&&&&&&&

What does a living constitutionalist believe?

The Living Constitution, or judicial pragmatism, is the viewpoint that the United States Constitution holds a dynamic meaning that evolves and adapts to new circumstances even if the document is not formally amended.


~S~

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Have your special ed teacher help you to look it up

well anyone can PP>>>>


What is an example of a constitutionalist?

The definition of constitutionalism is being ruled by basic standards and ideals which are consistent with an overriding rule of law or ethics. An example of constitutionalism is federal laws of the United States government which are consistent with the U.S. Constitution.

&&&&&&&&&&&&


What is an American constitutionalist?

Constitutionalism in the United States is a basic value espoused by political parties, activist groups and individuals across a wide range of the political spectrum, that the powers of federal, state and local governments are limited by the Constitution of the United States and that the civil and political rights of ...

&&&&&&&&&

What does a living constitutionalist believe?

The Living Constitution, or judicial pragmatism, is the viewpoint that the United States Constitution holds a dynamic meaning that evolves and adapts to new circumstances even if the document is not formally amended.


~S~

Thank you. To put it more succinctly I would say that the Constitutionalist adheres to a narrow and iteral reading of the Constitution similar to a Textualist or originalist, were as the concept of a living constitution is really the opposite > I dispute the notion that Constitutionalism spans the political spectrum. I see it as decidedly conservative

 

[Indeependent]

Thank you. To put it more succinctly I would say that the Constitutionalist adheres to a narrow and iteral reading of the Constitution similar to a Textualist or originalist, were as the concept of a living constitution is really the opposite > I dispute the notion that Constitutionalism spans the political spectrum. I see it as decidedly conservative

Every Lib here reads the USC and sees what they want to see in order to satiate their sexual perversions.

 

[sparky]

Thank you. To put it more succinctly I would say that the Constitutionalist adheres to a narrow and iteral reading of the Constitution similar to a Textualist or originalist, were as the concept of a living constitution is really the opposite > I dispute the notion that Constitutionalism spans the political spectrum. I see it as decidedly conservative

well the scotus is , at the moment, portraying their own political bent PP

juxtaposed to a living doc, this can be quite the ride for the constituency

Row V Wade , for ex, turned 1/2 of us into 3/5ths a human.....

Article one, section two of the Constitution of the United States declared that any person who was not free would be counted as three-fifths of a free individual for the purposes of determining congressional representation

and yes the myopic view of constitutionalism is rather exhausting, much like the religmo fundamentalists who's contrived constraints seem inversely proportional to their end goals of loving one another

~S~

 

[HeyNorm]

The government does not- for the most part- define social relationship with respect to marriage. A few exceptions are prohibiting the marriage of people who are too closely related, those who cannot legally consent, and until recently, those of the same gender. The legalization of same sex marriage moved the government one step further away from defining social relationships so I really don’t know what your blathering about.

In reality, it is the people who are involved in the marriage that determine their social relationship though an implied, unwritten and often unspoken contract with respect their expectations of marriage and of each other within the marriage. Yes it is that simple
The government’s role is limited to establishing the legal protections and financial benefits for the couple and their children. Beyond that, government has no role in the day to day functioning of a marriage . You are inventing issues and problems and making things way more complicated then they need be.

Marriage does not need to be changed or fixed. We got it right by extending marriage as we know it to same sex couples. We made it more inclusive and as such strengthened it as an institution. The only thing that need to be fixed is the brains of people who cannot accept and deal with the concept of marriage equality. Equality made the lives of hundreds of thousands of couples better. It made the lives of their children better. It cost no one anything. Those who are threatened by changing social and sexual norms need to consider whatever issues they are having with their own sexual or gender identity, or in their marriage and get professional help if necessary.

…….not too closely related creates a purpose that all are afraid to define.

 

[HeyNorm]

Give it a rest! I am not going to agree with the bbigots, or compromise with them. While claiming to want consensus, you seem to be proposing ways to further divide society

No, that would be you.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

…….not too closely related creates a purpose that all are afraid to define.

The fact is that that you are not bright enough to understand that the issue of consanguinity goes beyond reproductive and biological concerns and speaks the social and societal reasons for marriage

 

[HeyNorm]

The fact is that that you are not bright enough to understand that the issue of consanguinity goes beyond reproductive and biological concerns and speaks the social and societal reasons for marriage

So the wording is for nothing. You need to double your meds.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

So the wording is for nothing. You need to double your meds.

ZTB Alert!!

 

[HeyNorm]

ZTB Alert!!

Maybe doubling isn’t enough? Consult your physician first though.