- Joined
- Jun 20, 2008
- Messages
- 106,659
- Reaction score
- 98,556
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Did you purposely ignore what I wrote or what?
How did my post not address yours?
Did you purposely ignore what I wrote or what?
How did my post not address yours?
Since when do we use POLLS to change the Constitution? We have an amendment process, the Constitution doesn't evolve until it's amended. That's why we have 27 amendments.
You undressed yourself when you claimed that laws such as DOMA and immigration were "especially" important, thereby admitting that the President should prioritize certain laws over others. Don't blame others for your poor attempts to disguise what you yourself already know, which is that the Justice Department can't enforce all laws equally.
Oh, no! Not the Pee Wee Herman response! "I know you are, but what am I?
I said "especially", so that wipes out the Constitution, and you don't have to back up what you said. Impeccable logic!
I don't know why the lefties put themselves through all this. Why don't they just admit that they want what they want, they know it's not Constitutional, but they just want it anyway? You wouldn't be such easy targets then.
The SCOTUS doesn't need a new amendment for every ruling. And as the SCOTUS is made up of members of our era, it's only natural that they'll make interpretations of the Constitution based on the mores of that era. They are the products of the times they grew up in.
I think you may be looking at the rulings as somehow being led by the polls, when in reality the polls are nothing more than a reflection of the changing times.
Now, now. C'mon, own it. Let that inner Statist come out and crow!What a bunch of hysterical drivel. When you've calmed down you can come back and try to make an argument.
Now, now. C'mon, own it. Let that inner Statist come out and crow!
No I was responding to another poster, and you stepped in to debate on something I said to him. This it was taken out of context.
Ah. I took Deuce's comment to be tongue-in-cheek.
I didn't, so I asked the question. Since you're both liberal you would read his comment differently than me probably.
And out come the ad homs when you've lost.
Read more @: President Obama now says the Constitution protects same-sex marriage
I agree 100%! :applaud:applaud [/FONT][/COLOR]
that's impossible......there is no right to marry, .......there is a right to be with those you wish to be with......there is no such thing as a right which gives you a license, and compels anyone to preform any kind of service/ or words for the joining of two people.
marriage is a privilege, since a license is involved.....a privilege is provide by government, and government must honor its own privileges, not Citizens or business.
all Citiznes are to receive the same privileges, unless the state can show its in their interest not to give you a privilege.
NOTHING CAN BE A RIGHT , THAT LAYS A COST OR BURDEN ON ANOTHER PERSON.
Every Federal judge who's ruled on the matter disagrees.
well they are wrong..period....
That's the beautiful thing about America: you're allowed to have your opinion.
answer simple questions, if you dare
if marriage is a right.....why does it need a license?
if a license is need to fulfill a right of marriage, then a government bureaucrat must approve the right through a authorization of a marriage license.
are you saying rights need government approval to be exercised?
If you genuinely want an answer I suggest you reference the roughly eight hundred other threads that cover this exact question on, oh, just about every single page of every one of those threads. It's not my duty to repeat the arguments for you here. Barring that, read the decisions by each of the Federal judges who ruled that ssm was protected by the constitution. No doubt they would explains themselves more clearly than I could, and your understanding would be better for it.
so what your saying is you cannot answer.
Blacks law 2nd, states a marriage is a civil status
http://www.blacks.worldfreemansociety.org/2/M/m0762.jpg
if it is civil, its a privilege.
if you're more interested in what some guy on the interwebz thinks of constitutional matters than going directly to the people draw a paycheck from making decisions based on the constitution, that tells me you're not really interested in the answer.
thats no answer... you agree with obama, but you cannot answer a simple question of "how it can be a right", so therefore you accept what is being told to you without thinking in your own right.
No, I just don't see what's to be gained from going to every thread that discusses ssm and asking the same exact question multiple times, despite being answered every single one of those times.