Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
If they just want to profess their "love" to their mate, WHY DEMAND society has to take note of it and make a human rights issue on par with food, housing or healthcare? It isn't on par with heterosexual marriage on the basic grounds they in and of them selves out of their own sexuality without creating artificial logic cannot have kids and therefore don't need marriage. It isn't that hard.
The founder's were so dumb huh?Thank goodness it will be vetted experts making the decision instead of random posters on internet message boards.
Liberal logic: Nine anointed men and women in robes are allowed to pretend that something that never existed in the Constitution should be the law of the land as they go against the great unwashed.
How old are you, dude? You argue like a twit.
Your SCOTUS will always render an opiniony.Basically every judge that has looked at the issue has said that the 14th Amendment does apply
Like in Wisconsin
It is well-established that “the Constitution protects persons, not groups,” Adarand
Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200, 227 (1995), so regardless of possible future events
affecting the larger community, my task under federal law is to decide the claims presented
by the plaintiffs in this case now, applying the provisions in the Fourteenth Amendment as
interpreted by the Supreme Court in cases such as Loving, Romer, Lawrence and Windsor.
Because my review of that law convinces me that plaintiffs are entitled to the same treatment
as any heterosexual couple, I conclude that the Wisconsin laws banning marriage between
same-sex couples are unconstitutional
The same sex couple should have the same right to enter into a civil union contract, just as you and your wife had the right to enter into a marriage contract.If they just want to profess their "love" to their mate, WHY DEMAND society has to take note of it and make a human rights issue on par with food, housing or healthcare? It isn't on par with heterosexual marriage on the basic grounds they in and of them selves out of their own sexuality without creating artificial logic cannot have kids and therefore don't need marriage. It isn't that hard.
Why do any of us 'demand society' take note- oh wait- when my wife and I got married, we just went to City Hall and got a marriage license.
Equal rights for a same gender couple means equal rights- they should be able to get married exactly like my wife and I- and for the same reasons as my wife and I got married.
It isn't hard at all- equal rights versus discrimination.
Try reading Article I section ten of your CONstitution.There is no such thing as a right to contract.Again, same sex couples are not being denied the right to contract, the issue is not their right to equality but rather the redefining of a marriage contract. Equality can be established via the right to contract a same sex civil union.Incorrect.Sex is not a class distinction it is a physical distinction.The 14th amendment nullifies protected classes.
Gay Americans manifest as a class of persons entitled to Constitutional protections, including the right to due process and equal protection of the law as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment:
“In making a general announcement that gays and lesbians shall not have any particular protections from the law, inflicts on them immediate, continuing, and real injuries that outrun and belie any legitimate justifications that may be claimed for it.”
Romer Governor of Colorado et al. v. Evans et al. 517 U.S. 620 1996 .
There is such a thing as a right to marriage -- which gays are denied to marry the person of they want to be married to.
A marriage contract is a specific contract between a man and a woman, and that falls under the right to contract under Article I section 10 of your CONstitution.
Again, it is a matter if a specific contract called a marriage contract which has always been specifically defined, historically, traditionally, and legally as a contract between a man and a woman, forming a husband, (male) and a wife, (female) contractual relation. The same recognized relation may be obtained through a same sex civil union contract, without this short cited granting of fictional jurisdiction, to Your SCOTUS by allowing the misuse of the 14th amendment to your CONstitution.
The same sex couple should have the same right to enter into a civil union contract, just as you and your wife had the right to enter into a marriage contract.If they just want to profess their "love" to their mate, WHY DEMAND society has to take note of it and make a human rights issue on par with food, housing or healthcare? It isn't on par with heterosexual marriage on the basic grounds they in and of them selves out of their own sexuality without creating artificial logic cannot have kids and therefore don't need marriage. It isn't that hard.
Why do any of us 'demand society' take note- oh wait- when my wife and I got married, we just went to City Hall and got a marriage license.
Equal rights for a same gender couple means equal rights- they should be able to get married exactly like my wife and I- and for the same reasons as my wife and I got married.
It isn't hard at all- equal rights versus discrimination.
Nobody here is wishing to harm Homosexuals. Not allowing them to marry doesn't deprive them of human rights or hurt them in any way. Phony arguments aside. there isn't any NEED to allow homosexual marriage. It's a red herring. A false argument. Bullshit, not buying it.
No, your SCOTUS renders opinions based often on assumptions, and contradicts prior opinions based on whatever expands its jurisdiction, and centralized power to which it is part. No in your opinion, political appointees hold authority over the rights of the people.Your SCOTUS will always render an opiniony.Basically every judge that has looked at the issue has said that the 14th Amendment does apply
Like in Wisconsin
It is well-established that “the Constitution protects persons, not groups,” Adarand
Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200, 227 (1995), so regardless of possible future events
affecting the larger community, my task under federal law is to decide the claims presented
by the plaintiffs in this case now, applying the provisions in the Fourteenth Amendment as
interpreted by the Supreme Court in cases such as Loving, Romer, Lawrence and Windsor.
Because my review of that law convinces me that plaintiffs are entitled to the same treatment
as any heterosexual couple, I conclude that the Wisconsin laws banning marriage between
same-sex couples are unconstitutional
The difference between the opinion of Scotus and yours is
a) The Supreme Court has actual authority- you have none.
b) The Supreme Court actually understands the law and the Constitution- and you do not.
The Constitution does not provide a right to contract.Try reading Article I section ten of your CONstitution.There is no such thing as a right to contract.Again, same sex couples are not being denied the right to contract, the issue is not their right to equality but rather the redefining of a marriage contract. Equality can be established via the right to contract a same sex civil union.Incorrect.Sex is not a class distinction it is a physical distinction.The 14th amendment nullifies protected classes.
Gay Americans manifest as a class of persons entitled to Constitutional protections, including the right to due process and equal protection of the law as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment:
“In making a general announcement that gays and lesbians shall not have any particular protections from the law, inflicts on them immediate, continuing, and real injuries that outrun and belie any legitimate justifications that may be claimed for it.”
Romer Governor of Colorado et al. v. Evans et al. 517 U.S. 620 1996 .
There is such a thing as a right to marriage -- which gays are denied to marry the person of they want to be married to.
A marriage contract is a specific contract between a man and a woman, and that falls under the right to contract under Article I section 10 of your CONstitution.
Again, it is a matter if a specific contract called a marriage contract which has always been specifically defined, historically, traditionally, and legally as a contract between a man and a woman, forming a husband, (male) and a wife, (female) contractual relation. The same recognized relation may be obtained through a same sex civil union contract, without this short cited granting of fictional jurisdiction, to Your SCOTUS by allowing the misuse of the 14th amendment to your CONstitution.
Oh, yes I did answer your question, as I never said it was an inalienable right, I simply stated it was a right recognized by YOUR CONstitution as a right to contract. Again, you need to read your own CONstitutions Article I section 10. A State cannot impair the obligation of a civil union contract between Sam sex couples, however their is NO RIGHT to redefine a marriage contract, establishing a fictional jurisdiction misusing your 14th amendment.No, you didn't answer. There's no such thing as a right to contract. There is a right to marriage.I already answered that question. A marriage contract falls under the right to contract, and a marriage contract is specific to a man and a woman, otherwise it is a different contract by all historical, traditional and past legal definition. There is also a right for same sexes to contract a civil union in which the same legal rights as a marriage contract must berecognized recognized. Did you mis it the first time I answered your question?Last time I'm going to ask this ....... WHY do you think marriage is an inalienable right ... ?It is a fact that both are an argument based on sex. A marriage contract is based on sex, being a contract between the male and female sex.Nope, you are not stating fact. It is not a fact that toilets are an inalienable right nor am I aware of anyone fighting to establish that as a right in a court of law. Until you show me otherwise, all I hear is baying.I am simply stating facts and truth over fiction, baying at the moon as you call it is simply espousing truth and logic,over emotion.
You simply are denying the fact on which your case is based, which is the definition of a marriage contract wherein you wish to change the fact that it is a contract based on opposing sexes.
Husband being male, wife being female.
You didn't answer that because I asked you WHY you think marriage is an inalienable right. You answered the question, can you make up a fictitious right called a right to contract, which I didn't ask.
Do you want me to give you the answer?
Like it or not, the SCOTUS is legally deemed entity to render such decisions. Your opinions do not impact any Supreme Court decision in any way whatsoever.No, your SCOTUS renders opinions based often on assumptions, and contradicts prior opinions based on whatever expands its jurisdiction, and centralized power to which it is part. No in your opinion, political appointees hold authority over the rights of the people.Your SCOTUS will always render an opiniony.Basically every judge that has looked at the issue has said that the 14th Amendment does apply
Like in Wisconsin
It is well-established that “the Constitution protects persons, not groups,” Adarand
Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200, 227 (1995), so regardless of possible future events
affecting the larger community, my task under federal law is to decide the claims presented
by the plaintiffs in this case now, applying the provisions in the Fourteenth Amendment as
interpreted by the Supreme Court in cases such as Loving, Romer, Lawrence and Windsor.
Because my review of that law convinces me that plaintiffs are entitled to the same treatment
as any heterosexual couple, I conclude that the Wisconsin laws banning marriage between
same-sex couples are unconstitutional
The difference between the opinion of Scotus and yours is
a) The Supreme Court has actual authority- you have none.
b) The Supreme Court actually understands the law and the Constitution- and you do not.
No argument that a marriage is a right,as it falls under Article I section 10 of your CONstitution, however a marriage contract is specific to a man and a woman. Hence a man and a woman do have the right to enter into a marriage contract. Same sex couples also have the right to contract a civil union contract between themselves that is equivalent to a marriage contract and those obligations must not be impaired by the State. There is no right for a minority of individuals to redefine what is the definition of a marriage contract. Loving v Virginia was a case concerning a man and a woman's right to contract a marriage between themselves, not a redefining of a marriage contract.Try reading Article I section ten of your CONstitution.There is no such thing as a right to contract.Again, same sex couples are not being denied the right to contract, the issue is not their right to equality but rather the redefining of a marriage contract. Equality can be established via the right to contract a same sex civil union.Incorrect.Sex is not a class distinction it is a physical distinction.
Gay Americans manifest as a class of persons entitled to Constitutional protections, including the right to due process and equal protection of the law as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment:
“In making a general announcement that gays and lesbians shall not have any particular protections from the law, inflicts on them immediate, continuing, and real injuries that outrun and belie any legitimate justifications that may be claimed for it.”
Romer Governor of Colorado et al. v. Evans et al. 517 U.S. 620 1996 .
There is such a thing as a right to marriage -- which gays are denied to marry the person of they want to be married to.
A marriage contract is a specific contract between a man and a woman, and that falls under the right to contract under Article I section 10 of your CONstitution.
Again, it is a matter if a specific contract called a marriage contract which has always been specifically defined, historically, traditionally, and legally as a contract between a man and a woman, forming a husband, (male) and a wife, (female) contractual relation. The same recognized relation may be obtained through a same sex civil union contract, without this short cited granting of fictional jurisdiction, to Your SCOTUS by allowing the misuse of the 14th amendment to your CONstitution.
Loving v Virginia
"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."
Zablocki v. Rehail
AlthoughLovingarose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.
Maynard v. Hill,125 U. S. 190(1888), the Court characterized marriage as "the most important relation in life,"id.at125 U. S. 205, and as "the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,"
InMeyer v. Nebraska,262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,
InGriswold v. Connecticut,381 U. S. 479(1965), the Court observed:
"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."
Carey v. Population Services International,431 U. S. 678(1977)
"While the outer limits of [the right of personal privacy] have not been marked by the Court, it is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions 'relating to marriage,
Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur
"This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"
And if your SCOTUS rendered an opposing opinion to yours on this or any other issue, your opinion wouldn't mean jack either. And no SCOTUS opinion has been reversed?Like it or not, the SCOTUS is legally deemed entity to render such decisions. Your opinions do not impact any Supreme Court decision in any way whatsoever.No, your SCOTUS renders opinions based often on assumptions, and contradicts prior opinions based on whatever expands its jurisdiction, and centralized power to which it is part. No in your opinion, political appointees hold authority over the rights of the people.Your SCOTUS will always render an opiniony.Basically every judge that has looked at the issue has said that the 14th Amendment does apply
Like in Wisconsin
It is well-established that “the Constitution protects persons, not groups,” Adarand
Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200, 227 (1995), so regardless of possible future events
affecting the larger community, my task under federal law is to decide the claims presented
by the plaintiffs in this case now, applying the provisions in the Fourteenth Amendment as
interpreted by the Supreme Court in cases such as Loving, Romer, Lawrence and Windsor.
Because my review of that law convinces me that plaintiffs are entitled to the same treatment
as any heterosexual couple, I conclude that the Wisconsin laws banning marriage between
same-sex couples are unconstitutional
The difference between the opinion of Scotus and yours is
a) The Supreme Court has actual authority- you have none.
b) The Supreme Court actually understands the law and the Constitution- and you do not.
It's not a right at all between two independent people. Your mistake is thinking the government is entering a contract with two individuals. It is not. It is providing a license which is tantamount to granting permission for the two parties to enter into a marriage with each other.Oh, yes I did answer your question, as I never said it was an inalienable right, I simply stated it was a right recognized by YOUR CONstitution as a right to contract. Again, you need to read your own CONstitutions Article I section 10. A State cannot impair the obligation of a civil union contract between Sam sex couples, however their is NO RIGHT to redefine a marriage contract, establishing a fictional jurisdiction misusing your 14th amendment.No, you didn't answer. There's no such thing as a right to contract. There is a right to marriage.I already answered that question. A marriage contract falls under the right to contract, and a marriage contract is specific to a man and a woman, otherwise it is a different contract by all historical, traditional and past legal definition. There is also a right for same sexes to contract a civil union in which the same legal rights as a marriage contract must berecognized recognized. Did you mis it the first time I answered your question?Last time I'm going to ask this ....... WHY do you think marriage is an inalienable right ... ?It is a fact that both are an argument based on sex. A marriage contract is based on sex, being a contract between the male and female sex.Nope, you are not stating fact. It is not a fact that toilets are an inalienable right nor am I aware of anyone fighting to establish that as a right in a court of law. Until you show me otherwise, all I hear is baying.
You simply are denying the fact on which your case is based, which is the definition of a marriage contract wherein you wish to change the fact that it is a contract based on opposing sexes.
Husband being male, wife being female.
You didn't answer that because I asked you WHY you think marriage is an inalienable right. You answered the question, can you make up a fictitious right called a right to contract, which I didn't ask.
Do you want me to give you the answer?
The founder's were so dumb huh?Thank goodness it will be vetted experts making the decision instead of random posters on internet message boards.
Liberal logic: Nine anointed men and women in robes are allowed to pretend that something that never existed in the Constitution should be the law of the land as they go against the great unwashed.
How old are you, dude? You argue like a twit.
I was wondering the same thing about you- i figure you are about 13 years old and just are parroting what you hear from Conservative web sites.
Again, and again, I never saidThe Constitution does not provide a right to contract.Try reading Article I section ten of your CONstitution.There is no such thing as a right to contract.Again, same sex couples are not being denied the right to contract, the issue is not their right to equality but rather the redefining of a marriage contract. Equality can be established via the right to contract a same sex civil union.Incorrect.Sex is not a class distinction it is a physical distinction.
Gay Americans manifest as a class of persons entitled to Constitutional protections, including the right to due process and equal protection of the law as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment:
“In making a general announcement that gays and lesbians shall not have any particular protections from the law, inflicts on them immediate, continuing, and real injuries that outrun and belie any legitimate justifications that may be claimed for it.”
Romer Governor of Colorado et al. v. Evans et al. 517 U.S. 620 1996 .
There is such a thing as a right to marriage -- which gays are denied to marry the person of they want to be married to.
A marriage contract is a specific contract between a man and a woman, and that falls under the right to contract under Article I section 10 of your CONstitution.
Again, it is a matter if a specific contract called a marriage contract which has always been specifically defined, historically, traditionally, and legally as a contract between a man and a woman, forming a husband, (male) and a wife, (female) contractual relation. The same recognized relation may be obtained through a same sex civil union contract, without this short cited granting of fictional jurisdiction, to Your SCOTUS by allowing the misuse of the 14th amendment to your CONstitution.
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
The Constitution forbids the states from "impairing the obligation of contracts. That does not say people have an inalienable right to enter a contract. Which you should be happy about since had it meant such, that would be yet another reason the government has to allow same-sex marriage.
Nope, you never answered. Even that there was such a thing as a right to contract, that in itself would not raise a contract to the level of an inalienable right. Now you're just grasping for straws because you've completely exhausted all rationale for a defense of your position. Even if such a right existed, your claim that a right to contract would mean I have the right to enter a contract with a casino, thereby establishing gambling as an inalienable right. I hope even you can spot how ludicrous that is.Oh, yes I did answer your question, as I never said it was an inalienable right, I simply stated it was a right recognized by YOUR CONstitution as a right to contract. Again, you need to read your own CONstitutions Article I section 10. A State cannot impair the obligation of a civil union contract between Sam sex couples, however their is NO RIGHT to redefine a marriage contract, establishing a fictional jurisdiction misusing your 14th amendment.No, you didn't answer. There's no such thing as a right to contract. There is a right to marriage.I already answered that question. A marriage contract falls under the right to contract, and a marriage contract is specific to a man and a woman, otherwise it is a different contract by all historical, traditional and past legal definition. There is also a right for same sexes to contract a civil union in which the same legal rights as a marriage contract must berecognized recognized. Did you mis it the first time I answered your question?Last time I'm going to ask this ....... WHY do you think marriage is an inalienable right ... ?It is a fact that both are an argument based on sex. A marriage contract is based on sex, being a contract between the male and female sex.Nope, you are not stating fact. It is not a fact that toilets are an inalienable right nor am I aware of anyone fighting to establish that as a right in a court of law. Until you show me otherwise, all I hear is baying.
You simply are denying the fact on which your case is based, which is the definition of a marriage contract wherein you wish to change the fact that it is a contract based on opposing sexes.
Husband being male, wife being female.
You didn't answer that because I asked you WHY you think marriage is an inalienable right. You answered the question, can you make up a fictitious right called a right to contract, which I didn't ask.
Do you want me to give you the answer?
You can't?Perhaps. I'm not a lawyer nor do I profess to be one. Regardless, the Constitution is a framework to protect our rights and the government is sworn to uphold it. I can't imagine on what legal basis a court could Constitutionally deny a person their inalienable rights?that would lose in a court of law. you're arguing ideology and politics, not lawNo, I'm defending them.Now you're arguing inalienable rights?Of course it harms them. It treats them differently. That is harmful no matter who you are.Nobody here is wishing to harm Homosexuals. Not allowing them to marry doesn't deprive them of human rights or hurt them in any way. Phony arguments aside. there isn't any NEED to allow homosexual marriage. It's a red herring. A false argument. Bullshit, not buying it.
And it deprives them of inalienable rights the government is tasked with protecting.
YouIt helps me understand you are completely wrong. They absolutely should not be seeking the jurisdiction limiting them to be classified differently than others. They are correctly seeking to be treated equally under the law. But you were claiming they are giving the government more power to limit individual liberties; when in fact, they are seeking increased individual liberties. Ironically, you're the one proposing an infringement upon their individual liberties.Again, you misunderstand, and I feel I must be posting beyond your understanding. It is a matter of segueing the correct case in order to achieve the legal remedy being sought. It is being incorrectly argued to the advantage of centralized government in granting it further fictional jurisdiction and authority over our private lives. The case should be argued not under the 14th amendment, and the right to re-define a marriage contract, but rather the constitutional right to contract a civil union between same sex couples that grant them the equal treatment of a man and a woman who contract a marriage. The way this is being argued is all wrong and does nothing but establish further fictional jurisdiction to your SCOTUS, and expanded power to a central authority over the individual citizen. Does this explain action help your understanding?How can you argue that the Constitution establishes more authority over the individual citizen; while pointing out how people are petitioning the courts, which you claim empower the government and your proclaimed imposed limitations on peoples' individual rights -- when the people are seeking legal redress to their claim that the government is infringing on their individual liberties? You don't get to eat your cake and have it too.No the founders' were not "dumb" however from among the founders' came the rats/ratifiers who were unhappy with the Articles of Confederation because the central body did not hold enough power under that wholly federal system, therefore, those who sought to extend centralized authority devised a new CONstitution to consolidate the States under a wholly national system of government in order to establish an authority over the individual citizen, and an indefinite supremacy over all persons, and things.The founder's were so dumb huh?
Such is the need for extended fictional jurisdiction which the fools beg to grant to the national government.
You still don't get it.It helps me understand you are completely wrong. They absolutely should not be seeking the jurisdiction limiting them to be classified differently than others. They are correctly seeking to be treated equally under the law. But you were claiming they are giving the government more power to limit individual liberties; when in fact, they are seeking increased individual liberties. Ironically, you're the one proposing an infringement upon their individual liberties.Again, you misunderstand, and I feel I must be posting beyond your understanding. It is a matter of segueing the correct case in order to achieve the legal remedy being sought. It is being incorrectly argued to the advantage of centralized government in granting it further fictional jurisdiction and authority over our private lives. The case should be argued not under the 14th amendment, and the right to re-define a marriage contract, but rather the constitutional right to contract a civil union between same sex couples that grant them the equal treatment of a man and a woman who contract a marriage. The way this is being argued is all wrong and does nothing but establish further fictional jurisdiction to your SCOTUS, and expanded power to a central authority over the individual citizen. Does this explain action help your understanding?How can you argue that the Constitution establishes more authority over the individual citizen; while pointing out how people are petitioning the courts, which you claim empower the government and your proclaimed imposed limitations on peoples' individual rights -- when the people are seeking legal redress to their claim that the government is infringing on their individual liberties? You don't get to eat your cake and have it too.No the founders' were not "dumb" however from among the founders' came the rats/ratifiers who were unhappy with the Articles of Confederation because the central body did not hold enough power under that wholly federal system, therefore, those who sought to extend centralized authority devised a new CONstitution to consolidate the States under a wholly national system of government in order to establish an authority over the individual citizen, and an indefinite supremacy over all persons, and things.The founder's were so dumb huh?
Such is the need for extended fictional jurisdiction which the fools beg to grant to the national government.
Equal treatment is achieved via the right to contract a civil union between same sex partners, not by redefining a separate contract such as a marriage contract which is a contract between a man and a woman. Re-defining a marriage contract creates fictional jurisdiction. Where does this re-defining of a marriage contract end other than allowing your SCOTUS to extend its jurisdiction in defining this new fictional jurisdictions end?
Shall it end with polygamist rights to include that of several wives or husbands? Or that of the incestuous ?
To Where does this new fictional jurisdiction extend? The remedy is simple without the re-definition of a marriage contract, if the proper argument is made wherein your SCOTUS jurisdiction is not extended into further fiction.
inalienable?Ok, so we've established you can't answer a simple question ... now you're playing with strawmen. I didn't say anything about them seeking protection as a class. I said they are seeking the same protection of their inalienable rights that straight people have. That doesn't make them a special class -- that makes their rights equal under the law.When gays ask to be protected as a class, they are arguing they are different. Gawd, you need to pay more attention and speak/write lessAre you prepared to answer yet? Why do you think marriage is a fundamental right?The Court has stated on numerous occasions that marriage is a basic right. As such, denying two people that right because of who they are will be ruled unConstitutional.
People like you can reframe and misrepresent all you want. In the end you will wake up to the fact you have been wrong all along
Who has argued that as a legal argument in court? It may be an argument to back things up but no one I've heard of is arguing it as a legal point.
people like you do more harm than good
the greatest harm is often done by those professing to do goodIt helps me understand you are completely wrong. They absolutely should not be seeking the jurisdiction limiting them to be classified differently than others. They are correctly seeking to be treated equally under the law. But you were claiming they are giving the government more power to limit individual liberties; when in fact, they are seeking increased individual liberties. Ironically, you're the one proposing an infringement upon their individual liberties.Again, you misunderstand, and I feel I must be posting beyond your understanding. It is a matter of segueing the correct case in order to achieve the legal remedy being sought. It is being incorrectly argued to the advantage of centralized government in granting it further fictional jurisdiction and authority over our private lives. The case should be argued not under the 14th amendment, and the right to re-define a marriage contract, but rather the constitutional right to contract a civil union between same sex couples that grant them the equal treatment of a man and a woman who contract a marriage. The way this is being argued is all wrong and does nothing but establish further fictional jurisdiction to your SCOTUS, and expanded power to a central authority over the individual citizen. Does this explain action help your understanding?How can you argue that the Constitution establishes more authority over the individual citizen; while pointing out how people are petitioning the courts, which you claim empower the government and your proclaimed imposed limitations on peoples' individual rights -- when the people are seeking legal redress to their claim that the government is infringing on their individual liberties? You don't get to eat your cake and have it too.No the founders' were not "dumb" however from among the founders' came the rats/ratifiers who were unhappy with the Articles of Confederation because the central body did not hold enough power under that wholly federal system, therefore, those who sought to extend centralized authority devised a new CONstitution to consolidate the States under a wholly national system of government in order to establish an authority over the individual citizen, and an indefinite supremacy over all persons, and things.
Such is the need for extended fictional jurisdiction which the fools beg to grant to the national government.
And again I ask -- why do you think marriage is an inalienable right?
