[excon]

Hello:

I TOLD you dozens, and dozens of times, that you can't vote away someones Constitutional rights. You didn't believe me, so you did it anyway. But, in the last two months alone, your efforts at banning gay marriage have been struck DOWN by federal judges in SIX states.

When are you gonna start listening to me??

excon

[speechlesstx]

And they've all been stayed. It will go to SCOTUS.

[J_9]

Where is gay marriage stated in the Constitution?

[talaniman]

They aren't listening Ex, so just relax, sit back, grab some popcorn, and roll yourself a fat doob. Enjoy the show because they are running out of stuff to look stupid about.

Jindal: GOP must "stop being the stupid party" | Watch the video - Yahoo TV

Then a year later, he gets a stupid as the rest of them,

Bobby Jindal Gives Up, Joins the 'Stupid Party' - The Daily Beast

After four years of failed debuts on the national stage, Jindal hopes that this “war” against “elites” will give his political career meaning. And this might play well with conservatives who have a persecution complex. For everyone else—including most American believers—it falls flat.
Which is to say, if “Jindal 2016” were a race horse, I wouldn’t just hedge my bets—I’d buy shares in the glue factory.

Where is gay marriage stated in the Constitution?

Where is straight marriage in the constitution?

[NeedKarma]

Where is straight marriage in the constitution?

It isn't, it's not mentioned even once.

[J_9]

So, we are now taking a prism to the Constitution and bending it our current beliefs. When the ACTUAL Constitution was written there were no open homosexuals. I get that this is about discrimination, and I'm not either for, nor against, gay marriage. I just don't see how the Constitution comes into play.

Yeah, yeah, yeah... You are going to whine about discrimination. I know that.

[excon]

Hello J:

I just don't see how the Constitution comes into play.

It's simple, really. If marriage didn't come with rights, then marriage would strictly BE a religious matter. But, it does. And, the 14th Amendment says, "... nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

You get that, right?

excon

[ebaines]

None of this brouha would be an issue if 200 years ago the states and federal government didn't adopt so many laws involving one's marital status but had rather adopted the same laws using "civil unions" instead. That way "marriage" would have stayed a religous concept and "civil union" would be the legal concept. But that shipped sailed years ago. So now we're stuck, like it or not, with "marriage" being used both for religous purposes and for legal purposes. And consequently we're arriving at a place where same sex couples must be allowed to marry so they may enjoy the same protections and benefits as straight couples. The only other solution is to abolish any and all benefits that the various governments afford to married persons - from tax status to inheritance rights to social security benefits to the rights make medical decisions - but that ain't gonna happen. So we're stuck - it's only a matter of time. But it shouldn't matter to any married person whether the gay couple living next door is legally married or not - it doesn't detract from your marriage and it causes you no burden - so stop yer whining!

[cdad]

ex, what your missing is that the law was clearly defined and then there has been this big explosion to blur the lines of that definition. Since we are a nation of law we need to define the law so boundries are created.

There was still the path of civil union and they as a group made a choice not to elevate it to the same status as what traditional married couples enjoyed. Instead they chose to redefine the law to fit their world. If we hold that concept high then you can see that all laws could be twisted and we would end up with no laws at all.

[speechlesstx]

If we hold that concept high then you can see that all laws could be twisted and we would end up with no laws at all.

Kind of like POTUS does.

[Catsmine]

Ebaines has the right of this one. I have a piece of paper from the State that says my wife is my next of kin. Churches have been doing that since they were the State. Now we have Churches and a separate State. We still only have one piece of paper. This is the problem. As my wife just pointed out to me, the attempts at different pieces of paper have turned into bureaucratic revenue sources with eleventy seventeen hoops to jump through.

Possibly turning the process around and getting a "Wedding Certificate" or some such from the Churches would cause less hassle than "Civil Unions" from the State.

[Fr_Chuck]

The US Constitution as it was actually written before judges who decided to write law, not merely rule on it, had a separation of State and Federal Government.

Marriage is not a Federal law, now is it a right for straight or gay people, It is merely a state law. The Federal government using the "equal protection" clause has ruled on many state laws, it has no business ruling on.

Actually by the Constitution the power of enacting any law not specifically covered under the Constitution is a right of the state.

So by the Constitution the state is correct in making such laws since there was never and still is no official protection status. Gay right advocates are trying and with success to use the equal right clause to get courts to rule against the will of the majority of the people.

The same aspect could be conceived with the new POT laws, legal now in one area, but now my rights are being restricted, in Georgia I can not legally buy and smoke pot. So why can I not sue, under the equal protection clause. Because the government will say that each state is free to pass and have its own laws, even if they conflict with other states

[talaniman]

A majority of Americans don't care if gays can get married and file tax returns or any of the other legal rights granted under the federal law. DOMA was ruled unconstitutional, and many states have gay marriage bans ruled unconstitutional.

Why is it surprising that gay people are demanding the same rights as any other American citizen? Since when did states rights trump federal rights? We fought that war already.

[paraclete]

Since when did states rights trump federal rights? We fought that war already.

Apparently you haven't, the constitution doesn't say a lot of things, like you arn't allowed to succeed, but apparently these non provisions selectively remain states rights until there is federal legislation and then you get the challenges

[tomder55]

there are no state 'rights' or National government 'rights' .Rights are reserved for the people . Governments only have powers ...in our case ,governments have enumerated powers derived from the consent of the governed. Now the left see's Brewer's veto of SB 1062 as a victory for gay rights . What it really was is a cave in to corporate pressure. I'm sure that makes the left proud . The fact is that 18 States AND the national government have variations of the Religious Freedom Restoration Acts (RFRA) . Arizona's rewrite of their already existing law just brought it closer to the existing national law....and that says nothing about businesses having permission to discriminate. All it said was that the business owner could use a religious liberty defense in cases where they were accused of discrimination. In other words ,the law protected the merchant's rights and did not legislate anyone else's rights away.

[tomder55]

The Federal government using the "equal protection" clause has ruled on many state laws, it has no business ruling on.

You mean the imperial courts . Even when the people of the state (like California) had a definition of marriage ,the imperial courts have overturned it . DOMA Sec 3 was ruled unconstitutional ;but Sec 2 (states have the power to define marriage ) was retained .

[talaniman]

So if a state votes to go back to banning inter racial marriage that's cool to I assume?

[excon]

Hello again, tom;

states have the power to define marriage

It's true. But, if there are RIGHTS attached to marriage, the 14th Amendment comes into play. You CAN'T give ONE group of citizens RIGHTS, and deny them to another...

You get that, right?

excon

[smoothy]

We should give the Mormons their rights to Polygamy back as well then... thats unconstitutionsal as well to keep them from having as many wives as they want.

[talaniman]

It's their strongly held religious belief isn't it? You guys are big on YOUR religious beliefs. Not so much anyone else's. A harem of gay people would blow your mind wouldn't it? That's why I mentioned it. :)