Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm impressed! Six long paragraphs of dancing around, and refusing to even address, the implications of your own stupid logic.
I must be frustrating to try and pass off something as 'logic' when it's so laughably nonsensical. 45 years ago, the USSC laughed in the face of a state that trotted out the exact argument that you seemed to think made sense.
Too bad you didn't think through things before clicking POST. On the bright side, maybe now you're at least slightly less ignorant of the Equal Protection Clause.
Maybe ...
No dancing here ... I was very clear and straight forward, and I endeavored to present my point with simplistic clarity, appropriate for all age groups. If you're still confused, I'm afraid I can't help you.
But I would urge you to abandon the socialist lunacy and join the liberty movement. It would provide you exactly what you seek ... but you'd have to agree to abandon your desires to impose your ideas and opinions on how others should behave and live their lives too ... and I think that's your biggest objection, as we know how attached you liberals are to dictating this behavior and banning that activity. Your nature is an oppressive nature, which is why all measures of authoritarianism are simply varying degrees of leftist ideology.
BTW ... for the record, I'm a constitutional purist, which necessarily looks upon the 14th amendment as very dubious and probably unconstitutional, because by it's very nature, tends to rail against the basic fundamental purpose of the constitution insofar as it's primary goal of restricting federal power. And, there are elements that seem to directly oppose the 10th Amendment.
Since the 10th basically states that all powers not specifically granted to the federal government, nor prohibited to the state by the constitution, are reserved to the States and the people, the 14th amendment seems to countermand those provisions, by granting the federal government additional powers over the state that it had not previously enjoyed, which contradicts the provisions of the 10th that clearly intended to draw the line where it did ... at the 10th amendment, and all previous provisions and restrictions on federal powers remaining in effect.
In absence of the actual repeal of the 10th Amendment, for which the states would never agree ... a subsequent amendment cannot contradict already established law .... this is not a case of the most recent ... this is about what is already established. A later amendment cannot do an end run around already established law for convenience or to circumvent existing federal restrictions ... those existing restrictions established in the law must first be repealed.
Seems like if you're going to take the position that marriage shouldn't be redefined you should know the source of that definition in the first place.
I know the source - and most everyone else does to. You apparently don't, so instead of holding your hand and spoonfeeding you the information - I am choosing to treat you as an adult, confident that you are able to do your own research and learn the source of the definition yourself. Or would you prefer that I treat you like a child?
Fine. Outlaw divorce, too, on religious grounds, and see how many who think "one man/one woman, for life" should be enforced by law.
There are churches that do not recognize second marriages unless the first marriage was annulled. That is an issue of faith, in which the government does not interfere. People who want to remarry do so, and churches that do not wish to honor those unions do not. Same-sex marriage should be the same. Churches that don't want to recognize or perform them won't, but they should not impose their views on what is, for all practical purposes, a civil matter in this country.
You don't get it. He supports two things:
1- Equal rights, and no discrimination against gays as far as civil laws go (his premise) and that (federal) civil laws should not be attempting to define marriage (his opposition and actions on DOMA).
2- He believes that social issues are best left to society and states. Trust me, he will speak on the issue in NC (if hasn't done so already) but more as a person than as the President of the USA. Such distinction, I wish, more of our politicians could make.
Sigh... I do get it. I'm very clear on what the President supports. I understand why and I understand his reasoning. I also know there have been social issues on which the President has voiced his opinion. But not this one. And not until after the vote when the opinion of the Leader of the Free World made not a whit of difference. I'm sorry you can't seem to understand why that would disappoint.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,326 posts, read 54,350,985 times
Reputation: 40726
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harrier
I know the source - and most everyone else does to. You apparently don't, so instead of holding your hand and spoonfeeding you the information - I am choosing to treat you as an adult, confident that you are able to do your own research and learn the source of the definition yourself. Or would you prefer that I treat you like a child?
IF you know the source why not just say it?
Are you lying or do you just enjoy acting like a little child?
Fine. Outlaw divorce, too, on religious grounds, and see how many who think "one man/one woman, for life" should be enforced by law.
There are churches that do not recognize second marriages unless the first marriage was annulled. That is an issue of faith, in which the government does not interfere. People who want to remarry do so, and churches that do not wish to honor those unions do not. Same-sex marriage should be the same. Churches that don't want to recognize or perform them won't, but they should not impose their views on what is, for all practical purposes, a civil matter in this country.
Marriage is a contract - our laws allow contracts to be dissolved with the mutual consent of both parties - that is what divorce is. So - you apparently don't think much about the validity of contracts if you actually are advocating for outlaw of divorce. Typical deflection tactic from the pro gay marriage crowd - and easily identified and dealt with. Nice try though.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you're still confused, I'm afraid I can't help you.
