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.
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.
Your SCOTUS will always render an opinion that furthers it's fictional jurisdiction in order to grant more power to the central body to which it is part . The fools beg for it to grant itself further fictional jurisdiction over their liberty, such will end in an eventual dictatorship or the like, thus is the same path traveled time and again throughout history.
The founder's were so dumb huh?[/QUOTEThank 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.
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.
So true!!!!!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.
Ummm ... not for nothing but ... straight marriage isn't specifically enumerated in the Constitution either.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.
The answer to that question is simple....Mary, the person to whom I posted. She claimed homosexuals are being treated "equally" as heterosexuals.Who are you asking ?Still no answer ...
How is your ability to be legally married by the state to the person you love equal to that of a gay person who is not legally allowed to marry the person they love?
You said they're equal -- I'm searching for equality here ... but you won't answer ... ?
Given such a claim, I seek her ability to rationally explain how they're equal when she can legally marry the person she loves but a gay person can't.
She refuses to answer. Whether she realizes it or not, her refusal to answer, answers for her. Her refusal to answer informs me she can't rationally explain how they're equal because they're not actually equal, despite her desolate claim to the contrary.
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.
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.
So true!!!!!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.
They are political appointees, appointed to extend further fictional jurisdiction by whatever means to the national government over the State governments.
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?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.
Such is the need for extended fictional jurisdiction which the fools beg to grant to the national government.
Yes, indeed marriage is a basic right, and marriage is a contract between a man and a woman. The right to contract itself is a basic right under your CONstitution, and same sex couples can contract a civil union between themselves without fighting to redefine marriage and extend fictional jurisdiction to the central government.
What makes heterosexual marriage a right?The answer to that question is simple....Mary, the person to whom I posted. She claimed homosexuals are being treated "equally" as heterosexuals.Who are you asking ?Still no answer ...
How is your ability to be legally married by the state to the person you love equal to that of a gay person who is not legally allowed to marry the person they love?
You said they're equal -- I'm searching for equality here ... but you won't answer ... ?
Given such a claim, I seek her ability to rationally explain how they're equal when she can legally marry the person she loves but a gay person can't.
She refuses to answer. Whether she realizes it or not, her refusal to answer, answers for her. Her refusal to answer informs me she can't rationally explain how they're equal because they're not actually equal, despite her desolate claim to the contrary.
Marriage is a specific contract between a man and a woman. If no man may marry another man, then there is no violation of rights because marriage is a specified contract being between a man and a woman. Same sex couples should be allowed to exercise their legal right to contract a civil union that would be equivalent to a marriage contract, which is a contract between a man and a woman, only theirs would be a contract between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, which simply is not a marriage contract by definition, yet can be every bit as binding and recognizable.
Are you prepared to answer yet? Why do you think marriage is a fundamental right?
