• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

President Obama now says the Constitution protects same-sex marriage

Sure it can it is called income redistribution supported by taxation. I'll gladly give you a hamburger today and tax your neighbor to pay for it. ;)

direct taxation violates the founding principles and the founders were against it.

but it is true government steals the property [money ] of one citizen and gives it to another.
 
wrong......marriage is not a right....

what is going on is states are granting the privilege of marriage to people, ...however they are not granting it to everyone, meaning gay people.

the Constitution states if you grants privileges to the people you must grant it to them all, unless the states can show its in their interest no to give you the privilege, but states have not been able to do that.

Article 4

"The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States"

The SCOTUS has disagreed with you:

Chief Justice Earl Warren's opinion for the unanimous court held that:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State ".

Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Took a while for the polls to indicate a majority in favor.
What do you mean? Federal judges overturned the expressed (meaning through votes) will of the people. This is tyranny of the worst sort. In other countries when this has happened national judges became targets for assassination. This is a very dangerous thing for federal judges to do. They have usurped massive powers for themselves and it can only end badly.

Do you believe that the Regime is intentionally stoking a revolution? I do.

We need to step back and restore the balance of powers between the States, the Leviathan they unintentionally created, and the people. Then we can avoid the bloodshed while ridding ourselves of the tyrants and their tyranny. The framers, specifically George Mason, gave us the way. Article V and the Convention of States is our final hope.
 



“ Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State ".

civil right= privilege.

explain how.... if a right......how can you force someone to marry you.......rights do not have the power of force.




AMENDMENT XIV

Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


life, liberty, and property are ...........natural rights.
 
Last edited:
“ Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State ".

civil right= privilege.

explain how.... if a right......how can you force someone to marry you.......rights do not have the power of force.



AMENDMENT XIV

Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


life, liberty, and property are ...........natural rights.

Marriage is a contract between (two?) consenting, unmarried adults - how can that be civil right be denied to some folks and allowed for others?
 
As the number of Federal laws are literally countless (and yes, I used the word "literally" correctly, research it yourself), it only makes sense that the President would direct the Justice department to prioritize the enforcement of certain laws over others. There's no such thing as enforcing all of them equally because the nation doesn't have anything close to the money or manpower to do so. When you have an estimated figure as high as 300,000 laws (though again keep in mind that's just a mad estimate -- nobody knows the real number), at that point it actually makes sense to say something like "You know what? This law here is ****ing stupid. I'm telling the Justice Department to pursue these other laws instead."



The Many Failed Efforts to Count Nation's Federal Criminal Laws - WSJ

So let me emphasize: if the Justice Department had sufficient manpower and enforced every Federal law on the books, everyone reading this would be guilty and in Federal prison.
Perhaps our best course of action is to sunset all of them and start over. Then we need a Constitutional Amendment that says all laws, rules and regulations shall sunset at some future date based on the percentage of votes it passed by. Upon passage every law, rule, or regulation shall have a life not to exceed beyond the next election plus six more months for every percentage point above 50% that it received. Every law, rule and regulation must be passed by a recorded vote in both houses.

If we did this we would get our liberty back.
 
Last edited:
Just the opposite--it's your suggestion that is silly. State laws that exclude same-sex partners exclude them just the same, whether the partners are both men or both women.
Do you believe the consent of the governed is an outmoded concept?
Should the people have any say in establishing the rules under which they must live?

The states are precisely the right place for social rules to be decided.
 
Marriage is a contract between two consenting, unmarried adults - how can that be civil right be denied to some folks and allowed for others?


yes, contract

a civil right is a privilege under constitutional law.

if a state grants the people privileges, it must grant them to every one, people cannot be denied privileges, unless the state can show that not granting the privilege to some people..... is in the interest of the state.

states have been losing cases because they have been unable to show how not granting a privilege [marriage] to gay people ...is in that interest.

people are calling marriage a right.......ie.. natural right.

natural rights are not licensed......

if marriage was a natural right, why does it need a government bureaucrat to approve it?

rights only require, that government and people stand back, and let a right be exercised....it requires no action.

marriage [privilege] requires an action....someone must preform the service, and it must be approved by a person of government creating a piece of paper.
 
I don't see how. Regulating marriage is not one of the powers listed in the constitution for the federal government. But I do not speak constitutional lawyerese where shall actually means shall not and shall not means you will.
 
yes, contract

a civil right is a privilege under constitutional law.

if a state grants the people privileges, it must grant them to every one, people cannot be denied privileges, unless the state can show that not granting the privilege to some people..... is in the interest of the state.

states have been losing cases because they have been unable to show how not granting a privilege [marriage] to gay people ...is in that interest.

people are calling marriage a right.......ie.. natural right.

natural rights are not licensed......

if marriage was a natural right, why does it need a government bureaucrat to approve it?

rights only require, that government and people stand back, and let a right be exercised....it requires no action.

marriage [privilege] requires an action....someone must preform the service, and it must be approved by a person of government creating a piece of paper.

That a user fee is charged for a government service is not limited to marriage. You cannot own (most) property without paying a user fee in order to do so. That does not make you "oppressed" by the government but it does give you the power of government assistance to enforce your claim/deed to that property.
 
Do you believe the consent of the governed is an outmoded concept?
Should the people have any say in establishing the rules under which they must live?

The states are precisely the right place for social rules to be decided.

No, of course I don't believe any such thing. Of course this was designed to be a government of the people. And of course marriage should be, as it always has been a matter, a matter for the states to regulate.

I was refuting a silly argument I've seen thrown out quite a few times in various places (new material seems to be scarce at the Daily Kos, or wherever collectivists go to get their bright ideas.) The idea is that state marriage laws which exclude same-sex partners discriminate by gender, and therefore should be reviewed under intermediate scrutiny. It's nonsense, but the homosexual lobby is great at grasping at straws.
 
That a user fee is charged for a government service is not limited to marriage. You cannot own (most) property without paying a user fee in order to do so. That does not make you "oppressed" by the government but it does give you the power of government assistance to enforce your claim/deed to that property.

can you force [via law] another person to give you his time or labor?
 
Back
Top Bottom