thats a nice long post that says nothing since the fed didnt over step its bounds but the state did, the state infringed on THE PEOPLES rights so the fed stepped in and protected WE the peoples rightsEver notice the opening words of the Constitution, how it starts off how? We the People... an important acknowledgment that it is WE that came forward to make a framework of governing that was in no way intended to become our Master and we do its bidding... we, through our representatives at this convention, did not feel it workable, nor did we want, to be a direct democracy. So, through debate and compromise, we gave our consent to be governed under this framework. A framework that was sold on its direct promise on limiting of the Federal Government.
That promise is in breach and our consent to be governed can always, and legally, be withdrawn. We are the sovereigns, you see. You can deny it, but to deny implies a desire to be a slave with the government our master.
Where do you arrive at 51% of the vote not deciding anything? Out of 68 million votes in the election of 1960, Kennedy won by a mere 120K, so 50+% wins plenty in this country. 49% wins noting except perhaps a runoff in some cases. My god, how many times must this be repeated: there is a specific amendment [13th]regarding the abolition of slavery... your use of this as an explanation tied to the 14th and the push for gay marriage is comical. There is NO AMENDMENT REQUIRING SSM. Period.
Same sex marriage bans are not prohibited under the 14th... you may well get a bogus ruling under the SC saying so, but the 14th intended none of that, provides for nothing of that... and all those mumbo-jumbo contortions created by the court system itself do not make it so. It is only the structure they themselves have created out of whole cloth, with no specific guidance from anything that can be even vaguely alluded to in the Constitution or the 14 specifically, that arrives us at this pathetic point in our history.
Equal protections were extended only to life, limb and property... again, nothing about marriage rights was intended, mentioned nor sanctioned in the 14th. While its application is not specified and accommodations must be made for this, bit the amendment's scope was not limitless in all directions either. The court cannot, is not in its job description to just make up what it wants, that is the job of the law makers... not the court's job. The fact that they have gotten away with it, that is just the normal course of business, subverting the Constitution is something that needs be stopped, whether you and your colleagues recognize this tyranny or not. Their job is to rule whether something is Constitutional or not, based on the Constitution, the extent to which something is or is not...and of course to settle disputes.
The Supreme Court, just as with the entire apparatus of the Federal government, needs to be reined back in. They have overstepped their Constitutional bounds.
You will no doubt disagree, but you have no rational basis, except for the habit of just going along with whatever they choose to do, never giving it much of another thought. That is not really how it is supposed to work in a representative democracy, the citizenry is supposed to be awake, alert to incursions on its rights.
if you disagree simply prove the facts,laws, rights and court cases wrong lol
nice try, but it fooled nobody educated and honest, your post fails again