Should same-sex marriage be left to the States?

Lokiate said:

It's an issue that only effects a percentage of 3.5% of the population. Gay marriage is only a red herring to detract from the real issues our nation is facing.

Click to expand...

IMO if even 1 person is denied a right for no valid reason out of a billion people then that is 1 to many. This country is based on individual rights...not mass rights.

Kal'Stang said:

IMO if even 1 person is denied a right for no valid reason out of a billion people then that is 1 to many. This country is based on individual rights...not mass rights.

Click to expand...

This country is based on constitutionally specified individual rights, granted directly to the people, contitutionally specified federal powers and ALL other powers are left to the several states to decide. Marraige is neither a federal power nor an individual right, mentioned in the constitution, so it is therefore a state gov't power to set the standards for its contract terms. Just what constitutional right do you assert allows for SSM, that does not also allow for polygamy?

Chiefgator said:

It will continue to be an issue as long as hetero married people gain a benefit that is denied to non-hetero married people.
The largest on a federal level is the "married filed jointly" option.

I, personally, feel it is a Right and therefore not subject to a vote or state restriction, but that is not what you asked.

Click to expand...

Then simply change the tax law, that you cite as "unfair", not require a federal COURT edict to somehow allow ANY consenting adults to marry, trumping all state law for the sake of ending one 'discriminatroy' federal law. This action, federal control of marraige, SHOULD require a constitutional amendment, as marraige is NOT now a federal power, and with good reason.

Chiefgator said:

I do agree with this. A candidates stance on SSM will have ZERO influence on my vote.

Interestingly, I read an article written by a gay man a while ago that commented on how much money and effort was spent to get SSM passed and yet only a small fraction of gay couples actually got married. I am surfing via phone or I would try to find that source.

Click to expand...

What percentage of heterosexuals get married? If it isn't high enough should we ban hetero marriage too?

wolv67 said:

Credibility would be more in line with it being the right thing to do, although as for it being sustainable, a majority of the public supports it now. True, not most states, but that's more a reflection on politicians being useless. Even Row v Wade, contentious as that remains, has stood for decades. Almost certainly if the SC made it legal nationally, it would quickly become a dead issue. There'd be some vocal whiners, but overall support would continue to climb. Then there's the fact many just don't care if it's "solid" but only that it's a right to have.

Click to expand...

Ending slavery was the right thing to do, allowing women to vote was the right thing to do and repealing the prohibition of the recreational drug alcohol was the right thing to do, but all of these "right things to do", CORRECTLY took constitutional amendments to get them done, as should have Roe vs. Wade, instead of a judge (actually only 5 out of 9 specific judges) "inventing" or "implying" that a mysitcal (yet unwritten) "privacy" clause allows this to be so, because it is the "right thing to do", under the, also constitutionally non-existant, "right thing to do" clause.

ttwtt78640 said:

Then simply change the tax law, that you cite as "unfair", not require a federal COURT edict to somehow allow ANY consenting adults to marry, trumping all state law for the sake of ending one 'discriminatroy' federal law. This action, federal control of marraige, SHOULD require a constitutional amendment, as marraige is NOT now a federal power, and with good reason.

Click to expand...

ONE discriminatory law? Really? There are over 1000 federal rights, and benefits that you can only have access to with a marriage license.
Which would be more cost effective change the marriage license, or change over 1000 laws?

ttwtt78640 said:

This country is based on constitutionally specified individual rights, granted directly to the people, contitutionally specified federal powers and ALL other powers are left to the several states to decide. Marraige is neither a federal power nor an individual right, mentioned in the constitution, so it is therefore a state gov't power to set the standards for its contract terms. Just what constitutional right do you assert allows for SSM, that does not also allow for polygamy?

Click to expand...

So much wrong here....

First, people are not granted rights. The rights are there whether they are being surpressed or not.

Second, even the Constitution shows that there are rights that are retained by the people that the Constitution does not enumerate. the 9th Amendment shows this.

Third, SCOTUS has already ruled that marriage IS a fundemental right held by the people. Which means that the 9th Amendment applies. Because of this the 14th Amendment: Section 1, which prohibits the States from interfereing with individual rights, also applies. Which means this is not a subject which may be left up to the States.

Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Click to expand...

Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. Note History

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.

Click to expand...

US Constitution

The cases which have ruled on and agreed that marriage is a fundemental right are: Loving vs Virginia, and Zablocki v Redhail. And in Turner v Safley the court refused to apply strict scutiny to a Missouri prison regulation prohibiting inmates from marrying, absent a compelling reason. Instead, the Court found the regulation failed to meet even a lowered standard of "reasonableness" that it said it would apply in evaluating the constitutionality of prison regulations. I'll let you look those up for yourself.

Kal'Stang said:

IMO if even 1 person is denied a right for no valid reason out of a billion people then that is 1 to many. This country is based on individual rights...not mass rights.

Click to expand...

You realize that this is America, right?

Lokiate said:

You realize that this is America, right?

Click to expand...

Yes. What is your point?

Kal'Stang said:

So much wrong here....

First, people are not granted rights. The rights are there whether they are being surpressed or not.

Second, even the Constitution shows that there are rights that are retained by the people that the Constitution does not enumerate. the 9th Amendment shows this.

Third, SCOTUS has already ruled that marriage IS a fundemental right held by the people. Which means that the 9th Amendment applies. Because of this the 14th Amendment: Section 1, which prohibits the States from interfereing with individual rights, also applies. Which means this is not a subject which may be left up to the States.





US Constitution

The cases which have ruled on and agreed that marriage is a fundemental right are: Loving vs Virginia, and Zablocki v Redhail. And in Turner v Safley the court refused to apply strict scutiny to a Missouri prison regulation prohibiting inmates from marrying, absent a compelling reason. Instead, the Court found the regulation failed to meet even a lowered standard of "reasonableness" that it said it would apply in evaluating the constitutionality of prison regulations. I'll let you look those up for yourself.

Click to expand...

That is interesting but not exactly to the point, as the actual marriage statute was not challenged. It was the disallowing of other mixed race sex prohibitions or prison regulations that were overturned not the basic state marraige contract provisions. If it is reasonable to have title 9 college sports regulation, specifying that ONLY gender applies, then it is reasonable to have marraige laws where only gender applies. It has also been upheld that 'separate but equal' is allowed for gender, but not race. So far, no "gender bender" laws have been upheld, that I am aware of.

wolfsgirl said:

ONE discriminatory law? Really? There are over 1000 federal rights, and benefits that you can only have access to with a marriage license.
Which would be more cost effective change the marriage license, or change over 1000 laws?

Click to expand...

Show me the "cost effective" clause of the constitution. To assert that no constitutional action is required for this 'newly discovered' right to SSM, that would not also apply to polygamy, is very hard to do. What "compelling state interest" denies polygamy? Is it simply that TWO is the correct number of marraige "partners", while gender plays no role? That is not the case for business partnership contracts that may have multiple partners, yet specify no gender restrictions.

ttwtt78640 said:

This country is based on constitutionally specified individual rights, granted directly to the people, contitutionally specified federal powers and ALL other powers are left to the several states to decide. Marraige is neither a federal power nor an individual right, mentioned in the constitution, so it is therefore a state gov't power to set the standards for its contract terms. Just what constitutional right do you assert allows for SSM, that does not also allow for polygamy?

Click to expand...

So you're one of those that feels that only those rights written into the Constitution are guaranteed? You do understand that marriage has been deemed a right by the SC? Why? Because in order to list every right individuals possess we would need a lot of paper/computer memory to do so.

The Constitutional right to marriage along with the right of Equal Protection under the law guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. That is what gives people the right to be in a same sex legal marriage.

ttwtt78640 said:

Ending slavery was the right thing to do, allowing women to vote was the right thing to do and repealing the prohibition of the recreational drug alcohol was the right thing to do, but all of these "right things to do", CORRECTLY took constitutional amendments to get them done, as should have Roe vs. Wade, instead of a judge (actually only 5 out of 9 specific judges) "inventing" or "implying" that a mysitcal (yet unwritten) "privacy" clause allows this to be so, because it is the "right thing to do", under the, also constitutionally non-existant, "right thing to do" clause.

Click to expand...

Allowing same sex couples to enter into legal marriage is the right thing to do.

Was legalizing interracial marriage the right thing to do? What about deciding that male heirs should not have priority over female heirs, was that the right thing to do? If so, why didn't those things need a Constitutional Amendment? In fact, I guarantee there are thousands of cases in which the SC has ruled on things that you would consider "the right thing to do" without the need for a Constitutional Amendment because they were already covered by one. Just as the right to enter into a same sex marriage is already covered under a Constitutional Amendment.

ttwtt78640 said:

That is interesting but not exactly to the point, as the actual marriage statute was not challenged. It was the disallowing of other mixed race sex prohibitions or prison regulations that were overturned not the basic state marraige contract provisions. If it is reasonable to have title 9 college sports regualtion, specifying that ONLY gender applies, then it is reasonable to have marraige laws where only gender applies.

Click to expand...

They were overturned because marriage was deemed a fundemental right. The only way to take away a fundemental right is if there is a compelling interest to do so.

Also I don't think you quite understand Title IX. It prohibits the discrimination of someone based on their gender in regards to school athletics. So why you are using this I don't really know. If they are not going to allow a school to discriminate against someone because of their gender then why would it be ok for states to discriminate against SSM because of gender?

ttwtt78640 said:

Show me the "cost effective" clause of the constitution. To assert that no constitutional action is required for this 'newly discovered' right to SSM, that would not also apply to polygamy, is very hard to do. What "compelling state interest" denies polygamy? Is it simply that TWO is the correct number of marraige "partners", while gender plays no role? That is not the case for business partnership contracts that may have multiple partners, yet specify no gender restrictions.

Click to expand...

Again, I must reiterate that Rights are and always have been there. As such there is no such thing as a "newly discovered" right. You might be able to say that it is a "newly recognized" right, but it is not a "newly discovered right".

As far as polygamy is concerned...I agree that it to should also be allowed based on the same reasoning that is applied to SSM. While doing so a new system should be set up which takes care of the additional "problems" that arise from a polygamous marriage that are currently not addressed. Such as inheritance, divorce, custodial rights because of a divorce etc etc.

Kal'Stang said:

Yes. What is your point?

Click to expand...

This country was built on slavery, Manifest Destiny, keeping the Chinese doped up on cheap opium, and exploiting the weaknesses of "undesirables", such as the Jews, Germans, and Irish.

roguenuke said:

So you're one of those that feels that only those rights written into the Constitution are guaranteed? You do understand that marriage has been deemed a right by the SC? Why? Because in order to list every right individuals possess we would need a lot of paper/computer memory to do so.

The Constitutional right to marriage along with the right of Equal Protection under the law guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. That is what gives people the right to be in a same sex legal marriage.

Click to expand...

Marraige is a state contract, not a federal power. Just because federal law REFERS to a state contract status does not make it into a federal issue (or power). What denies the right of the people to polygamy? What denies the right to vote to convicted felons, but bestows most other rights to them without restriction? Many things simply are, yet that is why we have constitutional amendment, to change the things that simply are.

You assert that the SCOTUS can simply say something and it serves as an amendment, like Roe vs. Wade, making abortion kind of a right (yet it specifically said 'during the first trimester' but that just got blown off). It took constitutional amnendment to ban the recreational drug alcohol, yet none to ban herione, marijuana, cocaine, LSD or many other recreational drugs. We now seem to accept "close" or "related" to mean "stated" as it applies to constituional law.

How many state referemdums and laws have been passed relating to this SSM 'issue'? If something can not pass the test of the voters, we now seek to find a 'like minded' judiciary to "git-r-done", rather than actually admit that this is beyond the control of the constitution as stated.

The constituion envisioned "postal roads", yet made no provision that the states may charge license fees for or regulate travel on them, it just sort of happened, limitting our freedom as citizens to travel. Many rights can be implied or infered, especially given judges with the 'correct' attitude. I would bet that if the SCOTUS was 5 to 4, leaning to the right, then Roe vs. Wade would not have ever happened and that a constitutional "abortion rights" amendment will NEVER happen. We need to stick to making the constitutional law work as intended, not simply do "what seems right at the current time".

ttwtt78640 said:

Marraige is a state contract, not a federal power. Just because federal law REFERS to a state contract status does not make it into a federal issue (or power). What denies the right of the people to polygamy? What denies the right to vote to convicted felons, but bestows most other rights to them without restriction? Many things simply are, yet that is why we have constitutional amendment, to change the things that simply are.

You assert that the SCOTUS can simply say something and it serves as an amendment, like Roe vs. Wade, making abortion kind of a right (yet it specifically said 'during the first trimester' but that just got blown off). It took constitutional amnendment to ban the recreational drug alcohol, yet none to ban herione, marijuana, cocaine, LSD or many other recreational drugs. We now seem to accept "close" or "related" to mean "stated" as it applies to constituional law.

How many state referemdums and laws have been passed relating to this SSM 'issue'? If something can not pass the test of the voters, we now seek to find a 'like minded' judiciary to "git-r-done", rather than actually admit that this is beyond the control of the constitution as stated.

The constituion envisioned "postal roads", yet made not provision that the states may charge license fees for or regulate travel on them, it just sort of happened, limitting our freedom as citizens to travel. Many rights can be implied or infered, especially given judges with the 'correct' attitude. I would bet that if the SCOTUS was 5 to 4, leaning to the right, then Roe vs. Wade would not have ever happened and that a constitutional "abortion rights" amendment will NEVER happen. We need to stick to making the constitutional law work as intended, not simply do "what seems right at the current time".

Click to expand...

So answer the question. Was the SC right in asserting that interracial marriage must be legal in every state due to the 14th Amendment? Were they right to assert that a state could not give preference to a male heir over a female heir due to their gender due to the 14th Amendment?

Polygamy has already been addressed. The characteristic in question is number of people trying to enter into a contract. The state can show a legitimate state interest in limiting that number, particularly with the benefits and rights that currently come with the contract in question.

Lokiate said:

This country was built on slavery, Manifest Destiny, keeping the Chinese doped up on cheap opium, and exploiting the weaknesses of "undesirables", such as the Jews, Germans, and Irish.

Click to expand...

All true. But it is also true that slavery was ended, Manifest Destiny no longer applies, we no longer keep the chinese doped up on opium and we no longer legally exploit the weaknesses of "undesirables".

Why? Because individual rights are paramount to our law. Even if it is not always practiced.

Kal'Stang said:

All true. But it is also true that slavery was ended

Click to expand...

True, but only well after the Constitution was written. Which means a lot of people, including our founding fathers, thought that rights existed for them, but not the "negroes", who they believed weren't even people.

Manifest Destiny no longer applies

Click to expand...

In name, no, but you can't argue that we have stopped taking what we want by force, inhabitants of the land and resources be damned.

we no longer keep the chinese doped up on opium

Click to expand...

Cheap, mass produced psychoactive medications work so much better on the lower working class as a whole.

and we no longer legally exploit the weaknesses of "undesirables".

Click to expand...

Mexicans.

Why? Because individual rights are paramount to our law. Even if it is not always practiced.

Click to expand...

It's never been practiced, unless there was an underlying agenda that had to do with pocket lining, or staying in office. The spirit is very much the same.

ttwtt78640 said:

Marraige is a state contract, not a federal power. Just because federal law REFERS to a state contract status does not make it into a federal issue (or power). What denies the right of the people to polygamy? What denies the right to vote to convicted felons, but bestows most other rights to them without restriction? Many things simply are, yet that is why we have constitutional amendment, to change the things that simply are.

Click to expand...

Marriage is not just a state contract. Marriage is also a federally recognized institution. (and a scotus deemed right) Marriage also has many federally granted abilities. (over 1200 last I looked)

As for polygamy, I've stated time and again that it should be legal also. All for the same reasons that I think SSM should be legal. Just because it is not does not mean that it shouldn't be.

As for convicted felons the Constitution does address this in the 5th Amendment, the due process clause.

Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Click to expand...

Because of the bolded it shows that "liberty" can be taken away with due process of the law. Part of that liberty includes things like, the right to vote or the right to own a gun. Just because other rights have not generally been taken away before does not mean that they cannot be taken away.

ttwtt78640 said:

You assert that the SCOTUS can simply say something and it serves as an amendment, like Roe vs. Wade, making abortion kind of a right (yet it specifically said 'during the first trimester' but that just got blown off). It took constitutional amnendment to ban the recreational drug alcohol, yet none to ban herione, marijuana, cocaine, LSD or many other recreational drugs. We now seem to accept "close" or "related" to mean "stated" as it applies to constituional law.

Click to expand...

It took a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol because drinking it was considered a right. (it also was not considered a drug back then)

Roe v Wade may have specifically mentioned "first trimester" but it also specifically mentioned "viability".

Also no SCOTUS decision is considered an amendment. It can however ban certain laws from being enacted or overturn current laws based on what is in the Constitution and what previous SCOTUS decisions have upheld. This does not create a new amendment. It just strikes certain laws from the books. IE it adds no new laws or amendments. If however an amendment was added to the US Constitution that banned alcohol then they cannot strike down any state law that also bans alcohol. The only way that Prohibition was able to be gotten rid of was via another amendment.

ttwtt78640 said:

How many state referemdums and laws have been passed relating to this SSM 'issue'? If something can not pass the test of the voters, we now seek to find a 'like minded' judiciary to "git-r-done", rather than actually admit that this is beyond the control of the constitution as stated.

Click to expand...

I've already shown you how it is not beyond the control of the Constitution. And just because the majority of voters wanted something it does not mean that they should get that something. The majority of voters also wanted to keep miscegation laws. That wasn't allowed though. This country is not based on strict democracy. Mob rule should never be allowed to happen.

ttwtt78640 said:

The constituion envisioned "postal roads", yet made not provision that the states may charge license fees for or regulate travel on them, it just sort of happened, limitting our freedom as citizens to travel. Many rights can be implied or infered, especially given judges with the 'correct' attitude. I would bet that if the SCOTUS was 5 to 4, leaning to the right, then Roe vs. Wade would not have ever happened and that a constitutional "abortion rights" amendment will NEVER happen. We need to stick to making the constitutional law work as intended, not simply do "what seems right at the current time".

Click to expand...

As for state charging license fees and regulating travel on roads...that is where the 10th Amendment comes into play.

Also the Roe v Wade vote was 7-2. You are probably thinking of Planned Parenthood v. Casey in which the vote was 5-4. But regardless of what could have happened...well...that is not what did happen.

Lokiate said:

True, but only well after the Constitution was written. Which means a lot of people, including our founding fathers, thought that rights existed for them, but not the "negroes", who they believed weren't even people.

Click to expand...

Again true. But what the founders wanted, idividual rights, was still evident. The reason that slavery existed for them and not "negroes" is because many at the time did not think that "negroes" were fully human.

Lokiate said:

In name, no, but you can't argue that we have stopped taking what we want by force, inhabitants of the land and resources be damned.

Click to expand...

Agreed. Hopefully it will stop one day though. There are lots of things which take time to accomplish.

Lokiate said:

Cheap, mass produced psychoactive medications work so much better on the lower working class as a whole.

Click to expand...

This is only true if you think that is why they produce medications. I don't happen to think that is why though.

Lokiate said:

Mexicans.

Click to expand...

Knew you would use this. It is also why I said "legally".

Lokiate said:

It's never been practiced, unless there was an underlying agenda that had to do with pocket lining, or staying in office. The spirit is very much the same.

Click to expand...

This kind of reasoning could be applied to anything and everything.

Kal'Stang said:

As for state charging license fees and regulating travel on roads...that is where the 10th Amendment comes into play.

Click to expand...

Agreed. Unless you are hauling the mail, I don't see that you have a federal case against tolls.

Kal'Stang said:

You have a few problems here.

First, if a guy gouges out your dogs eyes then he is no longer with in his rights because his rights ends where yours start. So if he gouges out your dog's eyes then he is damaging your property. Which means he interfered with your rights. If you recipocate the gouging of eyes by gouging out his eyes then not only is it not an "eye for an eye" (because his eyes are not equal to your dog's eyes) but you are then interfering with HIS rights as your rights ends where his rights start. So no, the 9th would not apply to this scenario. Everyone's rights ends where someone else's rights begin.

Next, by stealing food you are stealing someone else's property. So the same precept applies here as it does above. Your rights end where someone else's rights start.

Click to expand...

Obviously.....I'm pointing out your reasoning.

And while this country might have been based off of Judeo-Christian beliefs (debateable), the Constitution does not run off of Judeo-Christian beliefs. It runs on laws and rights. Remember, the 1st Amendment puts a seperation between Church and State.

Click to expand...

Again....obviously, and irrelevant to the argument.

Next, you do have a right to life...until the courts deem that you do not deserve it (death penalty) because you killed a dozen people.

Click to expand...

HAHAHAHAHAHA you're funny. Completely irrelevant and an invalid argument. The right to live is already given, that is an obvious and completely different exception that again has a giant UNLESS!!!!. Nothing to do with law abiding citizens.

You also do have a right to liberty, so long as you do not interfere in someone elses right to liberty. And no one has the right to happiness. If everyone had a right to happiness then everyone would be rich and own porche's and never go hungry and always had free medical care that would help take care of any little problem that arose.

Click to expand...

Again obviously.....just pointing out your reasoning.

So in conclusion your protest about the 9th being invalid is not correct. The 9th Amendment was put there to protect any other fundemental right that was not put into the original Bill of Rights. That was not just its reason for being. It was the MAIN reason for it being put into the original Bill of Rights. With your type of arguement then no matter what the 9th Amendment would be invalid. In which case why the hell would it have been put in there to begin with?

Click to expand...

Wrong. The 9th amendment was written to protect things that are ours and to give further restraint on government. To protect things like the privacy and the sanctity of ones home, and abortion. Not sexual preferences.

You've got this backwards. Since Marriage has been determined to be a fundemental right it doesn't give the government more power. It restricts the government in its power. Since marriage is a fundemental right that means that the government is not allowed to make laws that restrict one class of people from getting married over another class...such as they tried to do during the miscegation era.

Click to expand...

That is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Giving the federal government one more social issue for them to make a decision and set a law is giving them more power. Also, you and everyone else that this was directed too have still failed to point out where marriage is Constitutionally sanctioned and/or is called a fundamental right. Which is utterly ridiculous... You talk about this country being a land of laws and rules yet, you act like we live ina fundamentally religious country where marriage is sanctioned about a federal Constitution.

You argue for the rights of States to decide in the case of SSM, which gives them all the power...power which is generally abused. We argue that since marriage is a fundemental right, and does not interfere with anyone elses right then neither the State, nor the Federal government can make laws against SSM. However we do look to the Federal government in enforcing that no other State makes laws against SSM because that is the Federal Governments main job...to protect the individual rights that each and every citizen of this country has.

Click to expand...

Oh look who's advocating fair and Constitutional action....Says the one that wants the federal government to simply overstep it's boundaries again and rule on something it's not allowed to.

Now personally I could care less if you hate, despise, love, like the LGBT community or not. The ONLY reason that I participate in SSM threads is to promote the right of two consenting human adults to marry. I believe that no one has the right to deny them something which I have as a right but they are not allowed just because they happen to be of the same gender. The only way that I would ever agree to deny SSM is if you can come up with a valid reason to deny it. Such as it harming another, outside person or interfering with another persons rights. Can you do this? Yes or no?

Click to expand...

First of all, it's not gender, it's sex. There is a difference. Learn proper English please...Second of all.

Lightning said:

Obviously.....I'm pointing out your reasoning.

Click to expand...

No, you applied your reasoning to what I said....falsely I might add.

Lightning said:

Again....obviously, and irrelevant to the argument.

Click to expand...

You're the one that brought up that this country was founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs (again, debateable). Funny how when you bring it up first its relevent but when I point out why that it is irrelevent you back track and say its irrelevent.

Lightning said:

HAHAHAHAHAHA you're funny. Completely irrelevant and an invalid argument. The right to live is already given, that is an obvious and completely different exception that again has a giant UNLESS!!!!. Nothing to do with law abiding citizens.

Again obviously.....just pointing out your reasoning.

Click to expand...

Ok, if you agree with me then what was your whole point to "right to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness" bit all about? Or were you just trying to wax poetic?

Lightning said:

Wrong. The 9th amendment was written to protect things that are ours and to give further restraint on government. To protect things like the privacy and the sanctity of ones home, and abortion. Not sexual preferences.

Click to expand...

Privacy and sanctity of ones home was already protected via the 4th amendment (and a combination of others but for now this is good enough to refute you). And abortion was protected via the 14th Amendment. Not the 9th. And even then it wasn't abortion that was directly protected...but the womans privacy. So sorry but you fail in this attempt. You really need to study up on the history and reason for the 9th Amendment. Here is a good starting place for ya...

findlaw.com ~ Ninth Amendment - Unenumerated Rights

Lightning said:

That is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Giving the federal government one more social issue for them to make a decision and set a law is giving them more power. Also, you and everyone else that this was directed too have still failed to point out where marriage is Constitutionally sanctioned and/or is called a fundamental right. Which is utterly ridiculous... You talk about this country being a land of laws and rules yet, you act like we live ina fundamentally religious country where marriage is sanctioned about a federal Constitution.

Click to expand...

If you truely believe this then all of the Bill of Rights amendments is nothing more than government interference and gives them more power. Do you actually believe this?

And yes, I have shown you which SCOTUS cases state that marriage is a fundemental right. And I have shown you how the Constitution applies to it because of that. I'm starting to think that you really need to read up on just how our government works.

Lightning said:

Oh look who's advocating fair and Constitutional action....Says the one that wants the federal government to simply overstep it's boundaries again and rule on something it's not allowed to.

Click to expand...

Show me where SCOTUS cannot rule on what is and isn't a right.