Tennessee House Expresses ‘Strong Disagreement’ With U.S. Supreme Court’s ‘Gay Marriage’ Ruling

Photo Credit: Kaldari/Wikipedia
Photo Credit: Kaldari/Wikipedia

NASHVILLE, Tenn. — The Tennessee House of Representatives voted on Thursday to pass a resolution that expresses “strong disagreement” with the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion that all states must legalize same-sex “marriage.”

In a 73-18 vote, the House approved Joint Resolution 529, submitted by Rep. Susan Lynn, R-Mt. Juliet. The resolution, which has no legislative weight, simply serves as a statement by lawmakers about their disagreement with the nullification of state constitutional amendments by the U.S. Supreme Court.

“They can’t decree that we now have to marry same-sex couples,” Lynn told the Tennessean. “Our law does not say that, it’s never said that, and it was never the intent of the General Assembly to do that.”

“Be it resolved by the House of Representatives of the one hundred ninth general assembly of the state of Tennessee, the Senate concurring, that this body expresses its strong disagreement with the constitutional overreach in Obergefell v. Hodges that, in violation of the constitutional and judicially recognized principles of federalism and separation of powers, purports to allow federal courts to order or direct a state legislative body to affirmatively amend or replace a state statute,” it reads.

The resolution also cites the dissenting remarks of Chief Justice John Roberts and the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

“Be it further resolved, this body concurs in the opinion of Chief Justice John Roberts, who in his dissent in Obergefell v. Hodges, said, ‘the Court’s accumulation of power does not occur in a vacuum. It comes at the expense of the people. And they know it,’ and acknowledges the reminder of Justice Antonin Scalia in his dissenting opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges that ‘with each decision of ours that takes from the people a question properly left to them—with each decision that is unabashedly based not on law, but on the reasoned judgment of a bare majority of this Court—we move one step closer to being reminded of our impotence.”

The resolution was passed mainly along party lines, but with four Democrats voting in favor: Reps. John DeBerry Jr., Kevin Dunlap, Joe Pitts and John Mark Windle.

  • Connect with Christian News

 

As previously reported, Tennessee was one of the states whose constitutional amendment on marriage had been upheld by the federal court—until it reached the Supreme Court.

“No one here claims that the states’ original definition of marriage was unconstitutional when enacted. The plaintiffs’ claim is that the states have acted irrationally in standing by the traditional definition in the face of changing social mores,” wrote Judge Jeffrey Sutton for the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals last November.

“If it is constitutionally irrational to stand by the man-woman definition of marriage, it must be constitutionally irrational to stand by the monogamous definition of marriage,” he asserted. “[But] the predicament does not end there. No state is free of marriage policies that go too far in some directions and not far enough in others, making all of them vulnerable…”

Tennessee’s Marriage Protection Amendment was passed in 2006 with the approval of 81 percent of voters.

Lynn’s resolution is expected to pass the Tennessee Senate.


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • Gott Mit Uns!

    Tennessee apparently has no problems that need to be addressed by its lawmakers.

    • Amos Moses

      Governments govern best who govern least. But who said this did not need to be addressed?

      • TheKingOfRhye

        Me, for one.

        Anyway, it’s not really ‘addressing’ anything, is it? It’s just saying they disagree with the SC’s ruling. Whoop-de-do.

  • robertzaccour

    I think the government should stay out of marriage to begin with. What are they gonna do next, make laws on girlfriends and dating? Just stay out of all matters in which nobody’s constitutional rights are being infringed upon.

    • Guest

      The civil contract of marriage is so the government can treat legally recognized spouses differently than friends, in the same way an adoption allows people to legally be considered parent and child.

      • robertzaccour

        From a strictly constitutional standpoint it seems wrong to me.

        • Guest

          Its a civil contract and the Constitution both establishes the right to contract and the right of the government to regulate contracts.

          • robertzaccour

            Contracts involving personal matters that should have nothing to do with them and that they should stay out of, but I digress…

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I kinda see the point of that, but if you want to govt to stay out of marriage, you’re gonna have to kiss all the tax breaks and benefits and such that they give married couples goodbye. If that happened, I suppose at that point all any couple would have to do to get married is…uh, well…just say they are, really. If there’s no government involvement, that is.

          • gizmo23

            In my state, common law, you only have to say you are married and you are

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Yeah, but the govt definition of marriage still applies, and they still give the same benefits to a common law marriage, I’m assuming.

          • gizmo23

            Yes

  • BarkingDawg

    waaa waaa waaa

  • B1jetmech

    Article 1 section 1 of the Constitution states that congress can ONLY legislate. Does that mean SCOTUS can legislate to? Nope.

    • Nidalap

      The Constitution is a truly awesome founding document. Unfortunately, due to recent events, I’ve been forced to a sad realization. If no one is willing to enforce it, it effectively ceases to exist…

      • acontraryview

        What portions of the Constitution do you believe are not being enforced?

        • B1jetmech

          The tenth amendment for starters.

          Then the executive branch not doing their job enforcing immigration laws already on the books.

          The treaty clause, so now we have a “deal” with a a terrorist nation to give them nukes.

          I can go on…

          • gizmo23

            Congress can change laws anytime and the right is in charge now

          • B1jetmech

            Well okay then….

          • acontraryview

            “The tenth amendment for starters.”

            What about it?

            “Then the executive branch not doing their job enforcing immigration laws already on the books.”

            In what way is that an example of portions of the Constitution not being enforced?

            “The treaty clause, so now we have a “deal” with a a terrorist nation to give them nukes.”

            What “treaty clause” are you referring to?

            “I can go on…”

            If you do, will you have some actual examples of what portions of the Constitution are not being enforced?

          • B1jetmech

            “What about it?”

            Explained it to you already, when SCOTUS takes away state power and makes decision for the states…want to go round and round on this? I will be happy to.

            “In what way is that an example of portions of the Constitution not being enforced?”

            In the Arizoan deicsion a few years ago, SCOTUS told Obama, “hey, you don’t have to enforce certain laws of immigration” so hence, the immigration problem we’re having today.

            “What “treaty clause” are you referring to?”

            The lack of treaty with Iran! It’s only an agreement. Have you been paying attention with the news or is it just homosexual marriage with you and nothing else?

            “If you do, will you have some actual examples of what portions of the Constitution are not being enforced?”

            Since you don’t have a clue what’s going on the country or the rest of the world, what qualifies you on anything constitutional?

          • acontraryview

            “when SCOTUS takes away state power and makes decision for the states”

            The states are not empowered to enforce laws that violate the protections provided by the Federal Constitution. If you have further questions about this, please see the 14th Amendment. So, no, the SCOTUS has not violated the 10th Amendment.

            “In the Arizoan deicsion a few years ago, SCOTUS told Obama, “hey, you don’t have to enforce certain laws of immigration” so hence, the immigration problem we’re having today.”

            Immigration laws are not part of the Constitution. Try again.

            “The lack of treaty with Iran! It’s only an agreement.”

            And?

            “Since you don’t have a clue what’s going on the country or the rest of the world, what qualifies you on anything constitutional?”

            So you don’t have any actual examples. Got it. Thanks.

          • B1jetmech

            “The states are not empowered to enforce laws that violate the protections provided by the Federal Constitution. If you have further questions about this, please see the 14th Amendment. So, no, the SCOTUS has not violated the 10th Amendment.”

            WE have gone full circle on this.

            There were no protections violated because there was no existing law defining homosexual marriage.

            I read and preached the 14th amendment to you, and yet you don’t have a clue of it’s historical context. It’s not a free for all for liberal social justice. It can be reforged into a homosexual marriage amendment.

            The justices on SCOTUS are not the brightest bulbs. Say, did you know you don’t have to be a lawyer to be nominated to the Supreme court?

            “Immigration laws are not part of the Constitution. Try again.”

            Immigration laws are laws passed by congress and signed by presidents per constitutional means. All laws must be enforced. If the law cannot be enforced then it gets rescinded.

            “And?”

            Yeah, “and”. This is how passive you are to a terrorist nation responsible for murder of many of our troops in Iraq and building nuclear weapons?

            How is Iran getting nuclear weapons and 150 billion dollars to expand their terrorist network? The US is going to help, not by a treaty that the senate stupidly bypassed but by an agreement. If this is too grown up for you…I understand.

            “So you don’t have any actual examples. Got it. Thanks”

            Dork.

            Oh yeah, Obama illegally removing the work requirement for welfare where he can’t modify laws and using his executive amnesty to allow illegals into the country and not deport them.

            Chew on those.

          • acontraryview

            “WE have gone full circle on this.”

            Yes we have and yet you continue to fail to understand. Unfortunate.

            “There were no protections violated because there was no existing law defining homosexual marriage.”

            The state provides the right for citizens to enter into civil marriage. States allowed two citizens of opposite gender access to that right. States denied two citizens of the same gender from accessing that right. That is NOT equal treatment under the law. While the states are free to enact laws which restrict the rights of citizens – not allowing a convicted felon to own a firearm, for example – any laws which restrict the rights of citizens must be based on rational, compelling, and legally valid reasons as to why the restriction is necessary. Laws restricting the right of two citizens to enter into civil marriage based solely upon gender were not based upon any rational and compelling reasons.

            “The justices on SCOTUS are not the brightest bulbs.”

            You are certainly entitled to you opinion. It is, however, irrelevant.

            I share your concerns regarding Iran. That, however, is not the topic of conversation. The topic is actions that violate the constitution. Please try to stay on topic.

            “Obama illegally removing the work requirement for welfare ”

            Please explain how Obama’s actions were “illegal”. What law was violated?

            “using his executive amnesty”

            No “amnesty” has been provided.

            “Chew on those.”

            Nothing to chew on. Just a bunch of hot air.

          • B1jetmech

            “Yes we have and yet you continue to fail to understand. Unfortunate.”

            Another words, you are wasting your time because you have not articulated your argument in a constitutional sense. All this time you spent so far has done nothing for you.

            “States denied two citizens of the same gender from accessing that right. That is NOT equal treatment under the law.”

            This is a new argument that goes back to 2003 Lawrence vs Texas. that first used 14th amendment or I should bastardize.

            “Please explain how Obama’s actions were “illegal”. What law was violated?”

            Do you live in a bubble? Presidents cannot modify existing laws, it has to go back to congress for revision.

            “No “amnesty” has been provided.”

            So when border agents, federal law enforcement are ordered to stand down on apprehending illegal aliens and NOT send them back because they can stay here…that is not amnesty???

            “Nothing to chew on. Just a bunch of hot air.”

            You sure chewed on something that affected your perception of what goes on around you.

          • acontraryview

            “Another words, you are wasting your time because you have not articulated your argument in a constitutional sense.”

            I have quite clearly articulated my argument. Unfortunately, you continue to deny the truth. That is certainly your right, but it does not make you right.

            “This is a new argument that goes back to 2003 Lawrence vs Texas. that first used 14th amendment or I should bastardize.”

            Actually, it goes back further than that. Please see Loving v Virginia.

            “Do you live in a bubble?”

            So you can’t explain what laws Obama broke. Got it. Thanks.

            “So when border agents, federal law enforcement are ordered to stand down on apprehending illegal aliens and NOT send them back because they can stay here…that is not amnesty???”

            Please cite when border guards were ordered to “stand down on apprehending illegal aliens and NOT send them back”.

            No, that is not amnesty. Look up the word in the dictionary. It will be helpful to you going forward.

          • B1jetmech

            “I have quite clearly articulated my argument. Unfortunately, you continue to deny the truth. That is certainly your right, but it does not make you right”

            You have and continue to be in the wrong constitutionally speaking because of your mis-interpretation of amendments and how they are applied intentionally and historically.

            “Actually, it goes back further than that. Please see Loving v Virginia”

            Loving vs Virginia was about right to sodomy?

            “So you can’t explain what laws Obama broke. Got it. Thanks.”

            Modify curent laws with out congress:

            Obamacare: 40 time plus

            Work requirement removed from 1996 welfare reform

            Made an agreement with Iran so they can nuke up and get 150 billion $$$ and went to the UN even before the senate could vote on it.

            Fails to enforce current immigration that you beloved supreme court okayed him on.

            So how small of a bubble do you live in besides Christian websites?

            “Please cite when border guards were ordered to “stand down on apprehending illegal aliens and NOT send them back”.

            It’s all over the news, not so much in liberal circles because they are running interference for Obama. So you might have to step out of your comfort zone and Christian news sights to go see.

            “No, that is not amnesty. Look up the word in the dictionary. It will be helpful to you going forward.”

            Oh…okay there Paul Rryan. The fact is they are staying in our country, getting freebies and probably on the verge of voting…it’s about beyond amnesty.

    • TheKingOfRhye

      Good thing they haven’t been legislating, then.

      • B1jetmech

        Then homosexual marriage is not legal since a court cannot legislate.

        • TheKingOfRhye

          A court can say that laws are unconstitutional. (see Marbury v Madison)

          • B1jetmech

            That may be, not that Marbury vs Madison has NO Constitutional grounds. However, congress can remove jurisdiction from the courts(s) because they have the power under the Constitution.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I don’t see what justification they would have for doing that, though.

          • B1jetmech

            If the courts are taking on the role of legislature and violating the tenth amendment through intervening over states sovereignty, then yeah, Congress can intervene. After all, it was congress that set up the current structure of the courts today.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            The states don’t have sovereignty over the federal government, though. They can’t have laws that are unconstitutional. It’s not the court’s job to say a law is unconstitutional? Then whose job would it be? The people making the laws themselves? Doesn’t sound right to me. Seems like that could lead to MORE disregarding of the Constitution, not less.

          • B1jetmech

            Okay, first lets read the 10th amendment ourselves:

            “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

            Another words, what is not delegated and defined in the Constitution to the the three branches is left to the states to decide on their own.

            A court can state a law is unconstitutional doesn’t mean they are right. The courts, especially the supreme court has a dark history of striking laws that were for the betterment of society like laws against slavery.

            Why can’t people vote on laws? They vote on politicians.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            We don’t live in a pure democracy where everything is up to a vote, though. Personally, I think that’s a good thing. Even if we did, though, we’d still have to have some body with the power to say “hey, that’s unconstitutional, can’t do that”, right? Or would you have the people decide what is and isn’t unconstitutional?

          • B1jetmech

            Of course we don’t.

            But this marriage issue is not mentioned in the Constitution so, per 10th amendment, it’s left to the states.

            Apparently the SCOTUS ignored the 10th and took it away from the people of the states.

            The states are not subjects to the federal government.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Well, the Supreme Court decided, quite a while ago actually, that marriage IS covered in the Constitution, as one of the “unenumerated rights” in the 9th Amendment.

            So, I suppose you’d say the SC’s ruling in Loving v Virginia was invalid as well? If the fed govt can’t rule on marriage…. you’d be fine with States being able to have laws banning interracial marriage?

          • B1jetmech

            So because the court rules on a matter does it make it legal? Isn’t there a point where a court steps out of it’s constitutional bounds and starts legislating from the bench?

            There is a reason why Article 1 Section 1 of the Constitution is clearly defined. If you want to change the Constitution then there is a certain process to take place through amending. Then courts can make laws form the bench, you know, have single justices bypassing congress.

            I don’t compare skin color to sexual behavior so to inject loving vs Virginia doesn’t wash.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            My pont is, the govt doesn’t make that distinction anymore, when it comes to marriage.

            And if you’re going to say the federal government can’t rule on marriage, what’s the difference between Loving and Obergefell?

            Besides, marriage is not necessarily sexual behavior.

          • B1jetmech

            Since when? An unconstitutional edict handed down by a slim majority of justices? Who gave these people the right to rule over our lives?

            The strong differences between the two cases is one involves skin color and the other sexual conduct which is what homosexuality is.

            “Besides, marriage is not necessarily sexual behavior.”

            Your contingent are coming up with these excuses or lack of of marriage is and isn’t.

          • Guest

            And since there is no behavior that homosexuals engage in that many times more heterosexuals aren’t engaging in the sexual conduct excuse doesn’t fly.

            Again, completely within the power of the court to remove a licensing restriction on the civil contract of marriage by finding it unconstitutional whether it be the sexes or races of the couple licensing its use.

          • B1jetmech

            If homosexuals being 3% of the population account for 65% of HIV cases then I say they are engaging in some conduct that obviously isn’t helping their cause.

            The court misused an amendment that was never intended to involve marriage.

          • Guest

            Oh boy playing with statistics! In spite of that the majority of gays don’t have the disease and a Christian doesn’t engage in stereotypes.

          • B1jetmech

            Yes, and they’re only relevant when you agree to them!

          • Guest

            Well they don’t have anything to do with constitutional rights.

          • B1jetmech

            Of course they don’t, why bring that up???

            I was pointing out the lack of utopia in the homosexual community.

          • Guest

            Ah. Must have missed the same lack in the community at large.

          • B1jetmech

            Whatever…

          • Ambulance Chaser

            “So because the court rules on a matter does it make it legal?”

            Depends on how that court rules.

            “Isn’t there a point where a court steps out of it’s constitutional bounds and starts legislating from the bench?”

            I suppose if courts were ruling on cases not brought before them, then that might legitimately be considered “legislating from the bench.” Of course, since that has never happened in this country, we don’t need to worry about it.

            “There is a reason why Article 1 Section 1 of the Constitution is clearly defined. If you want to change the Constitution then there is a certain process to take place through amending. Then courts can make laws form the bench, you know, have single justices bypassing congress.”

            Nobody is making any laws here.

            “I don’t compare skin color to sexual behavior so to inject loving vs Virginia doesn’t wash.”

            I’m sorry, you don’t get to do that. You can’t have one set of rules for one circumstance and another set of rules for a different one. If the subject of marriage is nowhere in the Constitution, then it’s nowhere in the Constitution. Period. It doesn’t magically appear for some types of marriage rulings and disappear for others.

          • B1jetmech

            “Depends on how that court rules.”

            Okay…

            “I suppose if courts were ruling on cases not brought before them, then that might legitimately be considered “legislating from the bench.” Of course, since that has never happened in this country, we don’t need to worry about it.”

            If you say so. But since we have the largest genocide take place within the the borders of this nation through abortion. I guess it did take place right?

            After all, SCOTUS made up some constitutional protection of “right to privacy”

            “Nobody is making any laws here.”

            Your assurances are as good as Obama’s.

            “I’m sorry, you don’t get to do that. You can’t have one set of rules for one circumstance and another set of rules for a different one.”

            Why not? Remember that slippery slope argument people bring up every now and then?

            “If the subject of marriage is nowhere in the Constitution, then it’s nowhere in the Constitution. Period. It doesn’t magically appear for some types of marriage rulings and disappear for others.”

            Then by your admission, the matter is left to the states per 10th amendment. That is what the 10th amendment is for when matters like this are not mentioned in the Constitution. but SCOTUS took that matter away from the states and federalized it. Which they has no jurisdiction to do.

          • acontraryview

            Loving v Virginia challenged state laws limiting marriage based upon race. Obergefell challenged state laws restricting marriage based upon gender. There is no inherent legal difference.

          • B1jetmech

            We are not talking about race here. WE know you all have to piggyback off the struggles the blacks went through to raise the bar of victimhood and eventually make it a civil rights issue.

            So once again, I don’t compare skin color to sexual behavior.

          • acontraryview

            “We are not talking about race here.”

            Correct. We are talking about gender. The legal question, however, is the same.

            “eventually make it a civil rights issue.”

            Equal treatment under the law IS a civil rights issue.

            “I don’t compare skin color to sexual behavior.”

            Neither do I.

          • B1jetmech

            “Correct. We are talking about gender. The legal question, however, is the same.”

            Actually it’s about sexual behavior because gender issues is about man and woman.

            “Equal treatment under the law IS a civil rights issue.”

            Is that fortune cookie message in the Constitution? Oh! the 14 amendment right? Which is malleable, right?

            “Neither do I”

            You and every other homosexual apologist here have done so.

          • acontraryview

            “Actually it’s about sexual behavior because gender issues is about man and woman.”

            You are mistaken. The law excluded two people of the same gender from entering into civil marriage. Sexual behavior of the two people was not a part of any law.

            “Is that fortune cookie message in the Constitution?”

            Nope. It’s a fact.

            “You and every other homosexual apologist here have done so.”

            Please cite where I have ever made a comparison between sexual behavior and race.

          • B1jetmech

            “You are mistaken. The law excluded two people of the same gender from entering into civil marriage. Sexual behavior of the two people was not a part of any law.”

            Sexual behavior is what defines a homosexual by their actions. So how was a law already in the Constitution that allowed homosexual to marry…the supreme court seems to think it’s right there in the 14th amendment when it has nothing to do with marriage.

            “Please cite where I have ever made a comparison between sexual behavior and race.”

            Your constant exploitation of loving vs Virginia.

          • acontraryview

            “Sexual behavior is what defines a homosexual by their actions.”

            So a celibate homosexual is not a homosexual? How about a celibate heterosexual? Not a heterosexual?

            Sexuality is not based upon behavior. it is based upon attraction. Whether a person behaves in a certain way is not what determines their sexuality.

            “the supreme court seems to think it’s right there in the 14th amendment when it has nothing to do with marriage.”

            The Supreme Court said no such thing. What the court said was that the states could not provide any rational or compelling reasons why a marriage license should be denied to two citizens based on nothing more than the gender of those citizens. Based upon that, laws restricting the rights of citizens in that regard were found to violate the 14th Amendment’s protection of equal treatment under the law.

            Tell me, B1j, why do you believe that the government, which represents all people, should deny a marriage license to two citizens of the same gender?

            “Your constant exploitation of loving vs Virginia.”

            Loving v Virginia was a challenge in federal court to state marriage laws. Obergefell was a challenge in federal court to state marriage laws. The former dealt with race-based restrictions. The latter dealt with gender-based restrictions. Neither had anything to do with behavior. Yet, at their heart, they were both the same. Was the restriction that the state had in place reasonable or did it deny equal treatment under the law?

            You have said that the federal judiciary should not be ruling on matters of marriage law because marriage laws are the provence of the state and marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution. If you believe that to be true, then you must condemn the court’s ruling in Loving v Virginia because the court did exactly what you said they should not be doing.

          • B1jetmech

            How can you read a person’s mind? To know if they are homo or hetero?

            If you tell us your a homo then do we take your word for it???

            “Sexuality is not based upon behavior. it is based upon attraction. Whether a person behaves in a certain way is not what determines their sexuality.”

            Oh is that it? So why would a homosexual remain celibate? Very few of them I can tel you that with the highest rate of STD’s and HIV then any other group in country…those celibates are far and few.

            The Supreme Court said no such thing.”

            Obviously the political persuasion drove the 5 leftist on the court to claim the 14tA applies to marriage which the 14A has nothing to do with.

            So how come in 2003 did the court finally use the 14A to justify sodomy?

            What’s I ironic is SCOTUS over turned an 1986 ruling in Bowers v. Hardwick that upheld laws against sodomy. Sandrda day O’Conner even ruled in the majority then to but reversed herself in Lawrence vs. Texas.

            “should deny a marriage license to two citizens of the same gender?”

            Because homosexuality isn’t normal, it’s unhealthy, it has the highest transfer of STD’s then any other group percentage wise. It benefits society in zero way. Now should two homosexuals have civil unions, of course, it’s property rights. If one person wants to will property to any one else by all means.

            “Neither had anything to do with behavior. Yet, at their heart, they were both the same. Was the restriction that the state had in place reasonable or did it deny equal treatment under the law?”

            You are WRONG. Obergefell was about behavior, hence, homosexuality. You see, when your side calls us haters for disagreeing them, they also top it off by calling us racist because were not homophobes we are racists too…according to your side. Then hey go down the check list how we were against civil rights and interracial marriage of course homosexuals marriage and now the gender benders the tranny’s.

            It’s a package your side rolls itself up in. Since homosexual friendly rulings are so recent, you have to revert to rulings that were “skin color” related. Because on your own(the movement) is new. So that’s why you have to “piggy back” off the hardships that blacks endured.

            “You have said that the federal judiciary should not be ruling on matters of marriage law because marriage laws are the provence of the state and marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution”

            So why should one judge or “five” determine everyone else’s decision? Are you for tyranny?

            “If you believe that to be true, then you must condemn the court’s ruling in Loving v Virginia because the court did exactly what you said they should not be doing.”

            Because it’s a form of racism, we had many laws on the books for decades. I think it should have been dealt with legislatively because court rulings can be used for other social engineering purposes.

          • acontraryview

            “If you tell us your a homo then do we take your word for it???”

            That would depend on whether or not you thought the person was honest. I can’t imagine why anyone would say they were homosexual if they were not, but ya never know.

            “Oh is that it?”

            Yup, that’s it.

            “So why would a homosexual remain celibate?”

            People have reasons for the choices they make. Why they would choose to do so is not, however, the question. The questions are this: So a celibate homosexual is not a homosexual? How about a celibate heterosexual? Not a heterosexual? What are your answers?

            “which the 14A has nothing to do with.”

            If that is your belief, then please state that you believe that the court should not have ruled in the case of Loving v Virginia and that you support the right of states to ban interracial marriage. The 14th Amendment applies to every law. Marriage laws are not excluded.

            “So how come in 2003 did the court finally use the 14A to justify sodomy?”

            The court did not, in 2003, “justify” sodomy. It found that citizens have a right to privacy regarding sexual acts and that the state cannot enforce laws which ban acts of sodomy – regardless of the gender of the people involved. The court did not rule on the relative merits of sodomy nor whether acts of sodomy were “justified”.

            “What’s I ironic is SCOTUS over turned an 1986 ruling in Bowers v. Hardwick that upheld laws against sodomy. ”

            In what way is that ironic?

            “Obergefell was about behavior, ”

            Obergefell was about denial of a marriage license based upon the gender of the two people applying for the license. What behavior was involved in that?

            “Because homosexuality isn’t normal, it’s unhealthy, it has the highest transfer of STD’s then any other group percentage wise. It benefits society in zero way.”

            Those are not factors of consideration when determining whether citizens are treated equally under the law. And, no, homosexuality is not, in and of itself, unhealthy. The vast majority of homosexuals are just as healthy as the rest of the population. Lesbians have the lowest rate of HIV infections as well as STDs of any demographic. Further, to suggest that being married does not benefit society in any way, is false. Numerous studies have shown that the higher the percentage of married couples in a community, the greater stability the community enjoys. Regardless, whether something benefits society is not a relevant factor in determining access to rights offered by the state to citizens.

            “So why should one judge or “five” determine everyone else’s decision? ”

            They don’t. You are free to decide not to marry someone of the same gender. No one is making that decision for you. Why are you so against all citizens having the same rights? Do you believe that it is reasonable to deny rights to citizens because you believe what they do is wrong? Are you for tyranny?

            “I think it should have been dealt with legislatively because court rulings can be used for other social engineering purposes.”

            So then you disagree with the ruling in Loving v Virginia and you support the right of states to ban interracial marriage if they choose such legislative action, correct? And if the citizens of Utah voted to only allow Mormons to enter into civil marriage, you would support that as well, correct? After all, it is a state issue so if the majority voted for it, it doesn’t matter if the rights of others are taken away, right? The courts have no say in the matter, correct?

          • B1jetmech

            “That would depend on whether or not you thought the person was honest. I can’t imagine why anyone would say they were homosexual if they were not, but ya never know.”

            So the mystery remains.

            “How about a celibate heterosexual? Not a heterosexual? What are your answers?”

            If a person wishes to be a monk or a priest, I believe they have to remain celibate. Other then that, what’s the purpose of celibacy aside for not having sex before marriage? (Per Command from God that is.)

            “Those are not factors of consideration when determining whether citizens are treated equally under the law. And, no, homosexuality is not, in and of itself, unhealthy.:

            I disagree, because this type of reaping comes with this type of life style. I’m not saying this to put down homosexuals, no, but when the CDC says they account for 60 plus% of HIV infections in the nation. Obviously, bad choices keep being made. And this is before the biblical reason, I haven’t even got to that.

            “that the higher the percentage of married couples in a community, the greater stability the community enjoys”

            That’s a given.

            “They don’t. You are free to decide not to marry someone of the same gender. No one is making that decision for you”

            I meant, why should judges decide for us citizens of our states?

            “Are you for tyranny?”

            Nope, just for what God stands for regarding marriage and a healthy society which we know the ingredients for.

            “So then you disagree with the ruling in Loving v Virginia and you support the right of states to ban interracial marriage if they choose such legislative action, correct?”

            The legislative process would have been best.

          • acontraryview

            “If a person wishes to be a monk or a priest, I believe they have to remain celibate.”

            That doesn’t answer my questions. If, as you stated, behavior determines sexuality, is a celibate homosexual is not a homosexual? How about a celibate heterosexual? Not a heterosexual? What are your answers?

            “I disagree”

            That is your right, but you have no facts to back up your disagreement. If homosexuality, in and of itself, were unhealthy, then every homosexual would be in poor health. Since that is far from reality, your assertion is without merit.

            “Obviously, bad choices keep being made.”

            Agreed. But those are personal choices. They are not a function of “being” homosexual. Over 90% of HIV infections world-wide are the result of sexual relations between heterosexuals.

            “I meant, why should judges decide for us citizens of our states?”

            That is the way our system is set up. If the judiciary were not allowed to rule on the constitutionality of state laws, how would the protections provided by the 14th Amendment be secured?

            “Nope, just for what God stands for regarding marriage”

            While you are certainly free to believe as you care to regarding what God stands for regarding marriage, unless you ARE God, you cannot know with certainty. It is merely your belief. We do not determine the rights of citizens based upon the religious beliefs of some citizens.

            “The legislative process would have been best.”

            Best for who?

          • B1jetmech

            Heterosexual is the normal course, Design by God. Where homosexual isn’t. People have left homosexuality to live a normal life.

            Why would a homosexual remain celibate? For what reason? If a man just wants to hang out with men, that doesn’t necessary make him homosexual. Some men are shy and timid around women. We are not a cookie cutter type personalty world, we are each different, because God created us to be different.

            “That is your right, but you have no facts to back up your disagreement. If homosexuality, in and of itself, were unhealthy”

            I’ve heard these stats for decades. Now with the internet, CDCdotgov has the stats for everyone to see. It’s unfortunate reality for those who live the homosexual lifestyle.

            “Agreed. But those are personal choices. They are not a function of “being” homosexual. Over 90% of HIV infections world-wide are the result of sexual relations between heterosexuals”

            We are talking in the the USA here. I agree on those stats for around the world.

            ]]” If the judiciary were not allowed to rule on the constitutionality of state laws, how would the protections provided by the 14th Amendment be secured?”

            The judiciary shouldn’t have the final say on matters because there is no recourse. Judges are unelected and left unchecked, have alot of power. That’s why congress needs to removes their jurisdiction but unfortunately, they are wondering the wilderness.

            “Unless you ARE God, you cannot know with certainty.”

            God is very clear about marriage and the sin of homosexuality. Best of all, his grace comes to those who believe and repent of their sin. You see, His grace, his mercy isn’t for the righteous…it’s for people like you and me.

            “Best for who?”

            Everyone, including the process itself. This nation has soled very difficult problems in the past without courts.

          • acontraryview

            I’ll ask yet again: If, as you stated, behavior determines sexuality, is a celibate homosexual is not a homosexual? How about a celibate heterosexual? Not a heterosexual? What are your answers?

            “It’s unfortunate reality for those who live the homosexual lifestyle.”

            There is no “homosexual lifestyle” any more than there is a “heterosexual lifestyle”. Both homosexuals and heterosexuals engage in varying lifestyles. If being homosexual, in and of itself, were unhealthy, then all homosexuals would be suffering health consequences. Since the majority do not, your statement is false.

            “The judiciary shouldn’t have the final say on matters because there is no recourse.”

            You are certainly entitled to your opinion on the matter, but the SCOTUS does have final say regarding the constitutionality of laws.

            “Judges are unelected”

            Not all judges. Many are elected.

            “That’s why congress needs to removes their jurisdiction but unfortunately, they are wondering the wilderness.”

            Well, as you said in another post, all you have to do to get something changed is to write to your legislators. How hard is that?

            “God is very clear about marriage and the sin of homosexuality.”

            That you have chosen to believe that the Bible contains the word of God, does not mean that it does. It is a matter of belief. That’s why it’s called “faith” and not “fact”. Again, unless you ARE God, you cannot say with certainty what his views are.

            “Everyone”

            Not the Lovings, or any other interracial couple who wanted to get married.

            “This nation has soled very difficult problems in the past without courts.”

            True. And the nation has also solved very difficult problems by being required to by the courts. Segregation is a great example. The people of Alabama fully supported segregation. Governor Wallace’s famous speech: “Segregation today. Segregation tomorrow. Segregation forever!” Had the issue been left up to the state, segregation would have continued. It was only ended because of a court decision.

            That is one of the reasons the courts exist. To ensure that the majority do not, based upon personal prejudice, or in your case personal religious belief, restrict the rights of the minority.

          • B1jetmech

            “There is no “homosexual lifestyle” any more than there is a “heterosexual lifestyle”

            False because people who are homosexual can leave it to live normal lives and have done so.

            “If being homosexual, in and of itself, were unhealthy, then all homosexuals would be suffering health consequences. Since the majority do not, your statement is false.”

            If you can measure a majority, never the less…the homosexual group has the highest rate of STD’s and HIV in the nation.

            “You are certainly entitled to your opinion on the matter, but the SCOTUS does have final say regarding the constitutionality of laws.”

            No they do not. They may think they do but Congress and ultimately the states have the final say. It’s difficult to get congress to do their job and push back against the courts to constitutional boundaries and it’s even harder for the states. But the states wield the most power per article 5. The issue has to be dealt with once and for all.

            SCOTUS set themselves up in Marburry vs. Madison as the final say, they were not given that power.

            “Not all judges. Many are elected.”

            Talking federal.

            “Well, as you said in another post, all you have to do to get something changed is to write to your legislators. How hard is that?”

            As the courts continue more and more to take power away form the people, congress will have to respond eventually. So the supreme court does not have the final say.

            “Again, unless you ARE God, you cannot say with certainty what his views are.”

            Unless you are born again, you won’t know.

            “Not the Lovings, or any other interracial couple who wanted to get married.”

            Notice: that courts were not used to free the slaves. If anything, they prolonged it and after prolonged segregation. wasn’t til the 1950’s when the courts started deciding more social cases with “Brown vs Board of education”

            “True. And the nation has also solved very difficult problems by being required to by the courts.”

            “Segregation is a great example”

            Uuuuh…Plessy vs. Ferguson doesn’t support your claim.

            “That is one of the reasons the courts exist. To ensure that the majority do not, based upon personal prejudice, or in your case personal religious belief, restrict the rights of the minority.”

            They exist for you to overturn the will of the people while calling it calling it civil rights.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            The states aren’t subject to the fed govt?? Bull. Federal laws and the Constitution supersede state laws. Article VI, Clause 2.

          • B1jetmech

            The laws passed through congress and what is spelled out in the Constitution. What is not mentioned in the constitution is left to the states. The lines are not blurred here.

            For instance, the courts don’t act as an another layer of law making when it comes to the sovereignty of the states per 10th amendment.

          • Guest

            And regulating contracts like the civil contract of marriage is very much allowed by the Constitution so your point falls in the dust.

          • B1jetmech

            Then tell us where in he Constitution that is justified without using the reconstruction era amendment, the 14A which was ratified for former slaves who didn’t standing to sue in court.

          • Guest

            The 14th amendment is what the Court used to decide the issue, they actually limited themselves to that one decision with the complaint before the court.

            And if the 14th only applied to a narrow concern it would have said so, it doesn’t.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            It’s in the 14th Amendment. I’m sorry, again, you’re making rules you don’t have a right to make. Why do I have to ignore the 14th Amendment?

            What if I ordered you to describe the sky, but you couldn’t use the word “blue?” Why should you be forbidden from using the word “blue?” Because I said so? Why do we have to not use the 14th Amendment? Because you said so?

          • B1jetmech

            Where in the 14A does it say anything about marriage? It doesn’t because it’s for the former slaves during reconstruction. The authors of the amendment never stated the 14A had anything to do with marriage which I will take their word over the 5 justices who are going against their intent.

            I’m not participating into what if’s…sorry.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Where does the 14th Amendment say that “it’s for the former slaves during reconstruction?”

          • B1jetmech

            When was the 14th amendment ratified and why?

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Who cares?

          • B1jetmech

            Then don’t use it against me when you don’t know what it’s about.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            I do know what it’s about. I’m saying “what it’s about” has nothing to do with the historical context in which it was written and ratified (of which I’m also fully informed).

          • B1jetmech

            If it’s about anything other then historical context then it MUST be amended.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Why? Courts rule based on precedent. Not on historical context. The first rulings that interpret an amendment may or may not keep close to the original intent but may not. And as they get farther and farther from the time of drafting, they become more attenuated from the original intent.

            That’s just the way it works. I’m sorry if you don’t like it, but that’s the way it is.

          • B1jetmech

            Is that because the constitution is living and breathing? Nope.

            You need to educate yourself further on the Constitution. Because there are constitutional processes for amendments. If something isn’t in the Constitution, then amend it. Because if we lived by what you say, then we live in a post constitutional nation.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Who says whether something is “in the Constitution” or not?

          • B1jetmech

            How about WE do…the Constitution isn’t hard at all to understand and we don’t need elites over us…sound good?

          • Ambulance Chaser

            No, it sounds absurd. You want to make every court case a public referendum? Maybe we just shouldn’t have courts at all then.

          • B1jetmech

            What would be a good ideal is Congress limiting the courts jurisdiction on these matters. Congress does have the power to do so.

          • acontraryview

            “The courts, especially the supreme court has a dark history of striking laws that were for the betterment of society like laws against slavery.”

            What laws against slavery did the SCOTUS strike down?

            “Why can’t people vote on laws?”

            They can. The people are free to vote on any law they care to. If a majority vote in favor, then the law is enacted. Subsequent to that vote, citizens are also allowed to challenge the constitutionality of the law in court. If the judiciary rules that the law violates the protections provided by the Constitution, the law is struck down and is no longer enforceable.

          • B1jetmech

            “What laws against slavery did the SCOTUS strike down?”

            Dred-Scott
            Plessy_vs Fergeson
            Koramtsu deision during WWII

            Well, congress can step in an limit the supreme court’s interference into state rights because it’s not up to the supreme court to federalize every social issue.

            Did you know congress has that power?

          • acontraryview

            In those three cases, the SCOTUS did not strike down law – it upheld law. Only Dred Scott v Sanford dealt with slavery. The other two did not.

            I’ll ask again: What laws against slavery did the SCOTUS strike down?

            “Well, congress can step in an limit the supreme court’s interference into state rights because it’s not up to the supreme court to federalize every social issue.”

            How would the Congress do that, exactly?

          • B1jetmech

            “I’ll ask again: What laws against slavery did the SCOTUS strike down?”

            Moore v. Illinois.

            Are you onto something here? Just pre empt you, I meant SCOTUS had a dark history of civil rights is what I meant, not so much as slavery itself.

            You know because of plessy vs Fergeson, it prolonged segregation another 40 years.

            “How would the Congress do that, exactly?”

            Well since congress has jurisdiction to set up courts like the current structure of today, they can limit a courts jurisdiction. If that is not good enough for liberals, then congress or the states and amend the Constitution to do so per article 5.

          • acontraryview

            “Moore v. Illinois.”

            That case had nothing to do with slavery.

            “Just pre empt you, I meant SCOTUS had a dark history of civil rights is what I meant”

            The court certainly has UPHELD laws that limited civil rights. Since you seem to have a negative view of that, you should be supportive of the court’s ruling in Obergefell, as it is supportive of civil rights.

            “You know because of plessy vs Fergeson, it prolonged segregation another 40 years.”

            Yes it did. It was not a case about slavery and the court did not strike down any laws in Plessy.

            “they can limit a courts jurisdiction.”

            Not without amending the Constitution which would require ratification by the people. So, no, on their own, Congress cannot “step in an limit the supreme court’s interference into state rights’.

          • B1jetmech

            “That case had nothing to do with slavery”

            That was a mix up on my part.

            “The court certainly has UPHELD laws that limited civil rights. Since you seem to have a negative view of that, you should be supportive of the court’s ruling in Obergefell, as it is supportive of civil rights.”

            For starters, just because you identify it as a civil right doesn’t mean it so. Is health care a civil right? Many on your side seem to think so. Besides, we don’t even know what makes a person homosexual, we only have your word.

            “Yes it did. It was not a case about slavery and the court did not strike down any laws in Plessy.”

            Since I didn’t write what I meant the first time, I meant that SCOTUS has a dark history of voting the wrong way when it came to civil rights not with just slavery.

            Did congress have to amend the Constitution when they set up the current structure of the judiciary?

            Where does it say SCOTUS can only have 9 members?

            Did you FDR was trying to pack the court in the 1930’s to push through his agenda?

            Seems to a wise man, that the judiciary isn’t all that power without the consent of the legislative branch.

          • acontraryview

            “For starters, just because you identify it as a civil right doesn’t mean it so.”

            Agreed. What makes it a civil rights issue is when people are treated differently under the law. Since that was the case regarding same-gender marriage, it is indeed a civil rights issue.

            “Besides, we don’t even know what makes a person homosexual, we only have your word.”

            How is that relevant to equal treatment under the law?

            “Did congress have to amend the Constitution when they set up the current structure of the judiciary?”

            Nope.

            “Where does it say SCOTUS can only have 9 members?”

            No where.

            “Seems to a wise man, that the judiciary isn’t all that power without the consent of the legislative branch.”

            And they have given their consent.

          • B1jetmech

            “What makes it a civil rights issue is when people are treated differently under the law. Since that was the case regarding same-gender marriage, it is indeed a civil rights issue.”

            Far as I know, you all were treated the same until you decided to change the definition of marriage and make the rest of us accept it or else.

            Yeah, that’s an example of a modern civil rights movement…

            “How is that relevant to equal treatment under the law?”

            How is relevant at all when no one has a clue???

            “And they have given their consent.”

            Give a court an inch, they take a mile.

          • acontraryview

            “Far as I know, you all were treated the same”

            You are mistaken. Some citizens were allowed to marry the adult, consenting, non-married, non-closely related person of their choice, other citizens were not. That is not equal treatment under the law.

            “you decided to change the definition of marriage”

            The current definition of marriage is the same as it was up until 1994.

            “and make the rest of us accept it or else.”

            Or else what?

            “How is relevant at all when no one has a clue???”

            So you don’t know how it is relevant. Got it. Thanks.

            “Give a court an inch, they take a mile.”

            You are certainly entitled to your opinion. That doesn’t change the fact that the judiciary is empowered to rule on the constitutionality of state laws.

        • acontraryview

          if a law that forbids something is found to violate the protections provided by the constitution, then that law is no longer enforceable. If the law is no longer enforceable, that which was illegal becomes legal.

          • B1jetmech

            So what was forbidden that was already, lawfully on the books?

            And what do you mean when it is no longer enforceable?

            Are we twisting pretzels here?

          • acontraryview

            “So what was forbidden that was already, lawfully on the books?”

            The courts have ruled that those restrictions where not lawful.

            “And what do you mean when it is no longer enforceable?”

            Seems pretty self-evident, but what it means is that even though a law remains on the books, it is not enforceable. For example, the law forbidding interracial marriage remained on the books in Alabama until 2000. However, after the SCOTUS ruling in Loving v Virginia, that law was not enforceable by the state.

          • B1jetmech

            “The courts have ruled that those restrictions where not lawful.”

            Yes, by twisting the 14A into a pretzel….

            If SCOTUS wants to state a law is unenforceable then their rulings should be subjected to the same criteria, right? What makes them special over the other branches of government?

          • acontraryview

            “Yes, by twisting the 14A into a pretzel….”

            You are certainly entitled to your opinion regarding their ruling, but it does not change the outcome.

            “If SCOTUS wants to state a law is unenforceable then their rulings should be subjected to the same criteria, right?”

            The Constitution is clear that the judiciary is empowered to rule on the constitutionality of laws.

            “What makes them special over the other branches of government?”

            Each branch is “special” in that each branch has separate powers.

          • B1jetmech

            “You are certainly entitled to your opinion regarding their ruling, but it does not change the outcome.”

            Which is what? I cant a straight answer from you. I homosexual marriage the law of the land or not?

            “The Constitution is clear that the judiciary is empowered to rule on the constitutionality of laws.”

            Not when the judiciary has a political agenda, which is easy to expose from the way they misuse the 14A.

            “Each branch is “special” in that each branch has separate powers.”

            Seems to me that the judicial branch is ceding power it does not have and overtaking the other branches.

          • acontraryview

            “Which is what?”

            That it is legal in every state for two citizens of the same gender to enter into civil marriage. In that sense, it is indeed the “law of the land”.

            “Not when the judiciary has a political agenda, which is easy to expose from the way they misuse the 14A.”

            What “political agenda” does the SCOTUS have? People have political agendas in order to secure election. The SCOTUS justices are not elected. Therefore there would be no purpose to a political agenda.

            “which is easy to expose from the way they misuse the 14A.”

            You are certainly entitled to your opinion. Did they also misuse the 14th in Loving v Virginia? If so, how? If no, why not?

            “Seems to me that the judicial branch is ceding power it does not have ”

            What power is the judicial branch ceding?

            “and overtaking the other branches.”

            How so?

          • B1jetmech

            “That it is legal in every state for two citizens of the same gender to enter into civil marriage. In that sense, it is indeed the “law of the land”.”

            So in other many words by you it’s the law of the land, even though it was legislated on? Right? That is illegal…you read that? Illegal.

            “What “political agenda” does the SCOTUS have? People have political agendas in order to secure election. The SCOTUS justices are not elected. Therefore there would be no purpose to a political agenda.”

            Well to educate on some history here, one of the liberal SCOTUS members plucked out an obscure case from Texas. Because SCOTUS views around 4,000 cases a year and select from that. But this obscure case played out to be Lawrence vs Texas which was the firs time SCOTUS used the 14th amendment to justify anything sexual. Kennedy wrote the majority opinion on…so don’t be so naive, Certain members of SCOTUS are very political.

            “You are certainly entitled to your opinion. Did they also misuse the 14th in Loving v Virginia? If so, how? If no, why not?”

            WE are not talking about “loving vs Virginia” because the person sexual behavior doesn’t drive their life style.

            “What power is the judicial branch ceding?”

            Federalizing state power and decision making or did that go over your head to?

          • acontraryview

            “So in other many words by you it’s the law of the land, even though it was legislated on? Right? That is illegal…you read that? Illegal.”

            It’s unfortunate that you are having such a hard time grasping this. I’ll try once again: The phrase “law of the land” refers to something being legal in all 50 states. it is does not refer to a particular law being in place.

            You seem to be under the mistaken belief that laws are put into place to make things legal. They are not. Laws are put into place to make things illegal. Anything that is not specifically prohibited is, by default, legal. Laws place limits on what people may do. Where is the law that says you are able to eat a hamburger? Where is the law that says you are able to use the internet? Again, laws do not state what we CAN do – they state what we CAN NOT do.

            “But this obscure case played out to be Lawrence vs Texas which was the firs time SCOTUS used the 14th amendment to justify anything sexual.”

            The right of citizens to engage in sexual acts in the privacy of their own homes without interference from the state is most certainly not “obscure”.

            “WE are not talking about “loving vs Virginia” because the person sexual behavior doesn’t drive their life style.”

            Sexual behavior is not a condition of marriage. Loving v Virginia challenged, in federal court, state marriage laws. If you believe that the federal courts should not be ruling on state marriage laws, then you should be denouncing the decision in Loving. Do you denounce that decision? Do you believe that Virginia, as well as any other state, should be allowed to deny marriage to interracial couples? And if not, on what basis should they not be allowed to do so?

            How about this example: Let’s say that the citizens of Utah hold a vote and make it illegal for anyone who is not Mormon to enter into civil marriage. Mormons are, after all, a majority of Utah citizens. If they did so, should all non-Mormons in Utah just live with that? Should they not be allowed to challenge that law in court?

            “Federalizing state power and decision making or did that go over your head to?”

            No, but apparently the definition of the word “cede” is over your head. I’d suggest you look it up before attempting to use it again. It does not support the erroneous point you are trying to make.

          • B1jetmech

            “It’s unfortunate that you are having such a hard time grasping this. I’ll try once again: The phrase “law of the land” refers to something being legal in all 50 states. it is does not refer to a particular law being in place.”

            So why not have a law in place so we won’t have this confusion? Because courts can’t legislate? Absolutely. It was the only way to get this change in marriage through out the nation by going through 5 justice on a far away court.

            However, it’s still an illegitimate law because it was never legislated.

            “You seem to be under the mistaken belief that laws are put into place to make things legal.”

            Yes, because were talking marriage here, not smoking pot. So now we have a bastard law, because it wasn’t conceived and born properly. And now states have to enforce this edict, I guess we all have to a call it an edict because the Constitution mentions no process of how these bastard laws are…created.

            So really, no one should honor such a bastard law. Obama doesn’t have to honor actual laws. We have sanctuary cities which goes against current laws.

            So what happens if a state refuses to honor this bastard law?

            “The right of citizens to engage in sexual acts in the privacy of their own homes without interference from the state is most certainly not “obscure””

            Would that be before or post Lawrence vs Texas?

            “Sexual behavior is not a condition of marriage.”

            No, it’s what differentiates itself from skin color.

            “Do you denounce that decision? Do you believe that Virginia, as well as any other state, should be allowed to deny marriage to interracial couples”

            After thinking about it some more, it should have been done legislatively. Because these cases like loving, get used in other liberal social experiments. They are good yes, but can be used as dual use for other liberal Utopian ideals to be forced on to society.

            “Let’s say that the citizens of Utah hold a vote and make it illegal for anyone who is not Mormon to enter into civil marriage. Mormons are, after all, a majority of Utah citizens.”

            None of this is going on and never will. At least you didn’t bring up polygamy.

            However, a law like that won’t survive long because of the push back from citizens. It would be rescinded in no time.

            “No, but apparently the definition of the word “cede” is over your head. I’d suggest you look it up before attempting to use it again. It does not support the erroneous point you are trying to make.”

            You really have thing for concentrated power do you?

          • acontraryview

            “So why not have a law in place”

            We do have laws in place. Marriage laws.

            “so we won’t have this confusion?”

            What is it you are confused about? In all states two otherwise qualified citizens of the same gender are allowed to marry. What is confusing about that?

            “However, it’s still an illegitimate law”

            What law are you referring to that is illegitimate?

            “So now we have a bastard law”

            What bastard law are you referring to?

            “Would that be before or post Lawrence vs Texas?”

            Both.

            “No, it’s what differentiates itself from skin color.”

            And that is relevant how?

            “After thinking about it some more, it should have been done legislatively.”

            So it is your belief that two citizens of different races should have been barred from entering into civil marriage, and thus denied equal treatment under the law, until legislative bodies in the states which had such laws decided that it was OK for them to be treated equally under the law, correct?

            “None of this is going on and never will.”

            If you support legal concepts then you need to be able to apply them in all possible scenarios. Otherwise, they are poorly thought out. So I’ll ask again: If they did so, should all non-Mormons in Utah just live with that? Should they not be allowed to challenge that law in court?

            “However, a law like that won’t survive long because of the push back from citizens. It would be rescinded in no time.”

            The majority of citizens in Utah are Mormon. The majority, according to you, is empowered to pass and enforce whatever law they care to, without regard to protections provided by the Federal Constitution. So how would the minority in Utah “push back” in such a way that would force the majority to change its decision?

            “You really have thing for concentrated power do you?”

            Not at all. I do, however, believe in the system we have in place. You, apparently, do not. Perhaps you should spend your time working on changing our system so that the majority, through their vote, is able to determine what rights other citizens have, rather than those rights being protected from such actions by the Constitution. It does appear that is what you would prefer.

            By the way, what does your statement have to do with your misunderstanding of the word “cede”?

          • B1jetmech

            Those laws are for a man and woman. The court came in and changed that through redefining marriage without the people’s consent.

            “What is it you are confused about? In all states two otherwise qualified citizens of the same gender are allowed to marry. What is confusing about that?”

            Why stop there? Why not a man and his daughter? Two sisters?

            “What law are you referring to that is illegitimate?”

            You got a point there because it never was a law(homosexual marriage), never-the-less, the process by which it came about…legislating from the bench.

            “What bastard law are you referring to?”

            Laws that were not legislated by Congress but by courts through “the back door”.

            “And that is relevant how?”

            Your exploitation of it to advance the homosexual agenda.

            “So it is your belief that two citizens of different races should have been barred from entering into civil marriage,”

            Now where is the world did I say that??? Just by contacting your representative so they can vote away laws that banned interracial marriage…what is so hard about that?

            “Not at all. I do, however, believe in the system we have in place.”

            The system that we have in place is for the most part unconstitutional. Because Congress refuse to act per their constitutional required duties, so the courts have picked up the slack. Now we find ourselves in more of mess every time a court rules on something when the people of this nation are against it.

            You, apparently, do not. Perhaps you should spend your time working on changing our system so that the majority, through their vote, is able to determine what rights other citizens have, rather than those rights being protected from such actions by the Constitution. It does appear that is what you would prefer.

            That is not what’s happening, The minority as you say are the ones determining how our marriage institutions are defined…going against thousands of years of human history and God’s word. that’st eh real issue at hand. No one’s rights are being violated because those “rights” never existed beyond what was already in our society as far as marriage.

            “So how would the minority in Utah “push back” in such a way that would force the majority to change its decision?”

            Hard to do “what ifs” because they won’t do it for starters.

            “By the way, what does your statement have to do with your misunderstanding of the word “cede”?”

            I guess I misunderstood the word “cede” like you misunderstand the 14th amendment.

          • acontraryview

            “Those laws are for a man and woman.”

            Please cite where, in currently enforceable marriage laws, it states that a marriage certificate is only available to two people of opposite gender.

            “The court came in and changed that through redefining marriage without the people’s consent.”

            No. The court struck down other laws that were specifically designed to limit access to marriage based upon the gender of the two citizens. Once those laws were ruled unconstitutional, two citizens of the same gender were no longer excluded from marriage and the laws regarding marriage returned to what they had been up until 1994.

            “Why stop there? Why not a man and his daughter? Two sisters?”

            Should laws regarding familial relationship be challenged in court, those cases will be argued on their own merits. The issue of familial relationship is unrelated to the issue of gender.

            “legislating from the bench.” “Laws that were not legislated by Congress but by courts”

            Since no law was created by the court ruling, there was no “legislating from the bench”.

            “Now where is the world did I say that???”

            You said that the courts should not be accepting, and ruling on, cases involving marriage law. Therefore, they should not have accepting, and ruled, on Loving v Virginia. Therefore, according to you, Virginia should have been allowed to continue to ban interracial marriage until such time as the Virginia legislature decided that it should treat all citizens equally without regard to race.

            “The system that we have in place is for the most part unconstitutional. ”

            What part of the Constitution is violated by our current system?

            “when the people of this nation are against it.”

            A more accurate statement would be: “when SOME of the people of this nation are against it”. Many of these laws were put into place over two decades ago. The most recent polling indicates that a majority of people support allowing two citizens of the same gender to enter into civil marriage. To suggest that “the people of this nation are against it” would be inaccurate. Further, we do not determine citizen’s rights based on how many people are against, or for, citizens having certain rights. That is determined solely by the Constitution.

            “That is not what’s happening,”

            Not any more. But, yes, that is exactly what was happening. A majority of voters in some states decided that certain citizens should not have access to the same right that other citizens had.

            “The minority as you say are the ones determining how our marriage institutions are defined”

            Civil marriage is a single institution. Religious marriage continues to be defined according to the beliefs of each religion. The minority did not determine how civil marriage is defined. The judiciary determined that laws which restricted access to a right offered by the state based solely upon gender were unconstitutional.

            “that’st eh real issue at hand.”

            Civil rights in the US are not determined by “thousands of years of human history and God’s word.”

            “No one’s rights are being violated”

            The right to equal treatment under the law was being violated.

            “Hard to do “what ifs””

            No it’s not. The legal concept you put forth should be applicable under every scenario. It seems you do not want to answer the question as you know it shoots a hole in your argument.

            “I guess I misunderstood the word “cede””

            No guessing about it. You did.

            “like you misunderstand the 14th amendment.”

            What part of the 14th Amendment do you believe I misunderstand?

          • B1jetmech

            “Please cite where, in currently enforceable marriage laws, it states that a marriage certificate is only available to two people of opposite gender.”

            You said we have marriage laws in place. I reminded you marriage is between a man and a woman. But the laws are only legitimate because they’ve been redefined by some court to include homosexuals.

            “No. The court struck down other laws that were specifically designed to limit access to marriage based upon the gender of the two citizens”

            Yes. after the the people from each state voted. The supreme court and you have spun this to make it sound legitimate. It’s still a bastard law because it’s illegitimate. Your side can’t respect lawful elections, the rest of us don’t respect your so called “right” to a marriage.

            “Should laws regarding familial relationship be challenged in court, those cases will be argued on their own merits. The issue of familial relationship is unrelated to the issue of gender.”

            Why is it unrelated? Why can’t two brothers marry? are two sisters? I don’t see why(according to your world view) should there ever be any limitations of what marriage is. What makes your homosexual marriage different from these? You want to swing the door open to redefining, then be ready to handle the baggage that goes along with it. Because some other so called group will claim a civil right to marry…and all they have to do is use the same argument as your group.

            “Since no law was created by the court ruling, there was no “legislating from the bench”.”

            Your denial doesn’t make sense here. How come over 50 million unborn children had died from abortion that SCOTUS forced upon all 50 states.? There are either laws are no laws…which is it?

            “You said that the courts should not be accepting, and ruling on, cases involving marriage law. Therefore, they should not have accepting, and ruled, on Loving v Virginia.”

            That has to so with skin color, not sexual behavior

            “Therefore, according to you, Virginia should have been allowed to continue to ban interracial marriage until such time as the Virginia legislature decided that it should treat all citizens equally without regard to race.”

            Well, I guess we will never know then right? Because the legislature never had a chance to vote on it.

            “What part of the Constitution is violated by our current system?”

            Utilizing the judicial branch to by pass the legislative branch in making of law that you continue to turn a deaf ear to.

            “The most recent polling indicates that a majority of people support allowing two citizens of the same gender to enter into civil marriage.”

            Then put a popular vote to it, I bet you wouldn’t be against that kind of democracy when the election results favor you, right? Why use the courts?

            “Further, we do not determine citizen’s rights based on how many people are against, or for, citizens having certain rights.”

            It never was determined on that because you, a minority of the population changed the meaning of marriage and forced the rest of the nation to accept.

            “That is determined solely by the Constitution.”

            The Constitution got thrown out when the court decided to federalized the issue and take it away from the people. To you all, there is no Constitution but just the 14th amendment.

            “Civil marriage is a single institution. Religious marriage continues to be defined according to the beliefs of each religion.”

            So how many different institutions of marriage are there? Before you all came along and corrupted it, it was just one institution. now there are more?

            “The minority did not determine how civil marriage is defined.”

            Well who did, if they did not?

            “The judiciary determined that laws which restricted access to a right offered by the state based solely upon gender were unconstitutional.”

            Obviously, the judiciary, who acted outside the Constitution, went along with minority. A joining of forces to over turn lawful elections,take decision making form citizens and possible forever damaged the institution of marriage.

            ‘The right to equal treatment under the law was being violated.”

            Still bastardizing that civil war amendment huh?

            “The legal concept you put forth should be applicable under every scenario. It seems you do not want to answer the question as you know it shoots a hole in your argument.”

            Apparently not, because judges who are imperfect like we are can’t decide every moral case and shouldn’t. That’s why matters like this are left to the states because of the complexity of the matter. When courts get involved and take decision make away from the people, we become a more divided nation. You all are still not happy and you will never will be.

            “No guessing about it. You did.”

            Since you misuse the 14th amendment, ignore constitutional violations by the the executive branch an claim there are no law legalizing homosexual marriage and abortion…I really don’t care.

            “What part of the 14th Amendment do you believe I misunderstand?”

            Uuuuh…the whole thing!

          • acontraryview

            So you can’t cite where existing enforceable marriage laws cite that marriage is only between two citizens of opposite gender. Got it. Thanks.

            “It’s still a bastard law because it’s illegitimate.”

            Please cite the law you are referring to. There is no law that specifically states that two people of the same gender are allowed to enter into civil marriage.

            “Why is it unrelated?”

            Because gender is completely different than familial relationship.

            “Then put a popular vote to it”

            No need to. That is one of the reasons the courts exist. Just as it was not necessary to put bans on interracial marriage or segregation to a vote.

            “you, a minority of the population changed the meaning of marriage”

            I changed nothing.

            “So how many different institutions of marriage are there? ”

            Two. Religious and civil.

            “Still bastardizing that civil war amendment huh?”

            Nope. The Amendment is clear. No law may be passed which results in citizens not being treated equally under the law.

            “Well who did, if they did not?”

            The judiciary.

            “Obviously, the judiciary, who acted outside the Constitution,”

            The 14th Amendment to the Constitution is clear. The court did not act outside of the Constitution.

          • B1jetmech

            “So you can’t cite where existing enforceable marriage laws cite that marriage is only between two citizens of opposite gender. Got it. Thanks.”

            Didn’t have to until you all came along and had to impose your utopia on the rest of us.

            “No need to. That is one of the reasons the courts exist. Just as it was not necessary to put bans on interracial marriage or segregation to a vote.”

            Of course, it’s a back door way. Maybe when we get a conservative president, congress can finally vote to limit the courts jurisdiction.

            “I changed nothing.”

            Now that you have imposed utopia, you seem agitated and must come to Christian websites and badger.

            “The Amendment is clear. No law may be passed which results in citizens not being treated equally under the law.”

            If that’s the case then how son can you marry your mother? Hey, two consenting adults!

            “The 14th Amendment to the Constitution is clear. The court did not act outside of the Constitution.”

            Clear as mud(for you).

          • acontraryview

            “Maybe when we get a conservative president, congress can finally vote to limit the courts jurisdiction.”

            Perhaps, but that will not change the ability to two citizens of the same gender to enter into civil marriage.

    • acontraryview

      “Constitution states that congress can ONLY legislate”

      Actually, that is not true. Congress does a lot of things besides creating legislation.

      Did you have a point that is relevant to the issue?

      • B1jetmech

        Since it went over your head, the point is courts cannot legislate like creating homosexual marriage through using a reconstruction amendment.

        • Guest

          They didn’t create ‘homosexual marriage’ they removed a licensing restriction so that citizens can sign the contract regardless of their sexes.

          No legislation at all, just nullified an unconstitutional law restricting who can sign the contract.

          • B1jetmech

            Homosexual marriage laws were not on the books to begin with. The congress never passed such laws creating such. So what did SCOTUS do then?

            It created a law, overriding the 10th amendment because marriage isn’t defined in the Constitution so it’s left up to the states.

          • Guest

            Neither were heterosexual marriage laws, there are just marriage contracts that don’t require the ℅-signers to be any particular sexual orientation. The sex-based licensing restriction to use the contract was found unconstitutional, that’s all. The contract itself hasn’t changed.

          • B1jetmech

            So poof! Homosexual marriage is law of the land now is what your saying?

            How are laws suppose to pass again?

          • Guest

            No marriage is the law of the land, just as it always have been. Now it just means all can license the contract someone else regardless of either’s sex.

          • B1jetmech

            Of course, but redefining marriage at a court level and taking it away from the people of each state is what is unconstitutional.

          • Guest

            Marriage is a contract, not a definition. You don’t like that all citizens regardless of their sex have access to the civil contract change the contracts name. In Europe many countries license civil union contracts and leave the term ‘marriage’ to the churches and the people to use as they see fit.

            But as long as the civil contract is titled ‘Marriage’ it will be accessible to citizens regardless of their race or sex.

          • B1jetmech

            You are making everything out to be academic…which it’s not.

            Marriage has a certain definition since the beginning of time. You changed it without our consent, even bypass election to get your way. But it doesn’t change what marriage is.

            I don’t care about Europe, they are imploding.

          • Guest

            Then again, the simplest solution for you would be to change the name of the civil contract to something else. Have at it.

          • B1jetmech

            We’re not the ones redefining marriage, that’s your side.

          • Guest

            Sorry, marriage – the belief – has included same-sex couples for a very long time. I attended my first same-sex marriage and wedding in the 1970’s and histories show them occurring many years before that.

            That’s the issue you can define it anyway you want as can anyone else. The civil contract isn’t a ‘definition’ it’s a contract and all that changed was a nullification of licensing restriction on that contract, not the contract itself.

            One reason why your side loses, you aren’t even talking about what the court is concerned with.

          • B1jetmech

            You can believe what ever you want. Someday, But don’t make the rest of us accept your beliefs through the court system because you claim my side is losing, well…who are the ones running to the courts when they don’t get their way in elections?

          • Guest

            hmmm you can win in the courts, you do know this is a constitutional republic, right? The most American way to win is on constitutional grounds.

          • B1jetmech

            I would rather skip the courts and move to a an Article 5 convention where the states themselves can amend the Constitution.

            One of the proposed amendments is 3/5 of state legislature can vote to override a supreme court ruling, and that vote by the legislatures will be the final say.

          • Guest

            yeah with the Trump crazies out there, the chances of a constitutional convention are nill to none.

          • B1jetmech

            It’s not a constitutional convention is’t a convention of states. The was only one constitutional convention. A convention of states is a convention to amend the constitution. The states can ratify amendments without congress.

            When congress gathers it’s a convention of congress.

          • Guest

            Yes, thanks. Still not happening.

          • B1jetmech

            Why? Do you like the structure of an oligarch?

          • Guest

            Better than it could be.

          • B1jetmech

            So we should replace our legislative branch with a straight judicial one?

          • Guest

            It’s a balance, we can pass any law we want but they do have to pass constitutional muster too. And when the constitution and knowledge changes so does what it does.

          • B1jetmech

            I didn’t know that he judicial branch can over rule the legislative branch, And I thought the three branches were equal…they use to.

          • Guest

            Yeah, that’s it job it can’t make law but it can deal with the constitutionality of laws and executive actions.

            They aren’t equal, they’re balanced.

          • B1jetmech

            So, if the supreme court cannot make law how comes homosexual marriage is the law of the land then?

          • Guest

            Now you’re just being contrary, the marriage contract is the same, only a licensing restriction has been removed. The court can nullify law not make it.

            Before: to license civil contract cosigners had to be certain sexes.
            After: to license civil contract cosigners regardless of sexes.

          • B1jetmech

            I’ll ask again, is homosexual marriage the law of the land???

          • Guest

            equal access to the civil contract regardless of sex is the law of the land no matter who licenses the contract.

          • B1jetmech

            So then SCOTUS legislated from the bench. It’s not their job, this is what I mean when the judicial branch is overtaking the legislative.

          • Guest

            Again, nullifying a law isn’t legislation.

          • B1jetmech

            Then it’s not the law of ht eland then right?

          • Guest

            Marriage? Of course marriage civil contracts are available in all states, territories, protectorates and DC.

          • B1jetmech

            You are not making sense…it’s either law OR not.

            You need to make up your mind because your not doing your side justice here.

            It sure sounds like it’s not law….so states are not compelled to honor this particular SCOTUS ruling.

            Then again, Obama doesn’t have to obey law so why should anyone else, right?

          • Guest

            You aren’t making sense, of course the civil contract of marriage is defined by law.

            All Obergfell did was nullif the law regarding a licensing restriction, no law was made.

          • B1jetmech

            If I’m not making any sense here, who is stating here that homosexual marriage is legal but was never legislated?

            How does a law of he land exist if never legislated?

          • Guest

            There is no such thing as heterosexual or homosexual marriage, there is no sexual orientation requirement to license the civil contract, never has been. What has been nullified is the sex restrictions on licensing it, but that is an old law gone, not anything new.

            Same old contract just can be licensed with a cosigners regardless of the citizen’s sex now

          • B1jetmech

            According to God marriage is between a man and woman. It’s his creation, it’s his deign. When we stray from his design we sin.

            WE don’t have any right to redefine what he created.

            I will say it again regarding no new law argument. Then homosexual marriage isn’t legal.

          • Guest

            Then you don’t understand the law, nothing new was created, an unconstitutional licensing restriction went away.

            And your religious definition of marriage is one the government can’t use since other religions don’t have the same as yours.

          • acontraryview

            “Marriage has a certain definition since the beginning of time.”

            How “marriage” has been defined has come in many different forms over man’s existence. It has not had a single definition “since the beginning of time”.

            “But it doesn’t change what marriage is.”

            If that’s the case, why do you care?

          • B1jetmech

            “It has not had a single definition “since the beginning of time”.

            Oh yes it does. Since Adam & Eve

            “If that’s the case, why do you care?”

            Because it’s not up to a select few to rule over the rest of us, particularity redefining what marriage is.

          • acontraryview

            You are mistaken. Marriage involved multiple partners for centuries and still does today in some places. Marriage was also defined at one time as being only between those of the same social class, or the same race, or of the same religion. How marriage has been defined has been different, and still is different, based upon different times and different cultures.

            “Because it’s not up to a select few to rule over the rest of us”

            Are you required to marry someone of the same gender?

          • B1jetmech

            yeah, so? Doesn’t mean they were right. Even some in the bible had multiple wives like Abraham and King David, Solomon. All of which had family issues.

            So the Bible clears it up once and for all in 1 Corinthians 7.

            The standard for marriage is one man and woman. One day, everyone who thinks differently of that will answer to God about it.

            “Are you required to marry someone of the same gender?”

            Don’t be a fool, a minority of a population doesn’t dictate to the rest of us of which social constructs to embrace.

          • acontraryview

            “Doesn’t mean they were right.”

            I didn’t say they were. I was simply pointing out there your statement was false.

            “a minority of a population doesn’t dictate to the rest of us of which social constructs to embrace.”

            Exactly. Which completely nullifies your earlier statement that the minority is “ruling over the rest of us”. You are free to embrace or not embrace whatever you care to.

          • B1jetmech

            “Which completely nullifies your earlier statement that the minority is “ruling over the rest of us”. You are free to embrace or not embrace whatever you care to.”

            Nullifies?

            Minority, oligarch or whatever you want to call it is driving the agenda and deciding it for the rest of the country. How did I nullify my own statement? I reaffirmed of what I said.

            So when we win elections it’s the tyranny of the majority, when you all win court cases..it’s settled law or law of the land.

            This pretty much sums up your mindset..right?

          • acontraryview

            “Nullifies”

            Yes, nullifies. Are you not familiar with that word?

            “How did I nullify my own statement?”

            First you said that the SCOTUS decision in Obergefell amounts to “ruling over the rest of us”, then you said that “a minority of a population doesn’t dictate to the rest of us of which social constructs to embrace.”. Your second statement is accurate and nullifies your first, since no one can be required to “embrace” anything they don’t care to.

            “So when we win elections it’s the tyranny of the majority”

            Who is “we”? I have never used the word “tyranny” to describe votes in this situation. And, no, outcomes of elections are not always the “tyranny” of the majority. If, however, votes restrict the rights of the minority for no reason than a majority agree with restricting those rights, then the majority is imposing its will on the minority in contravention to the protections provided by the Constitution.

            “when you all win court cases..it’s settled law or law of the land.”

            It is one of the functions of the Federal judiciary to rule on the constitutionality of laws. If you don’t like that system, you should be out there working to change our constitutional republic into a pure democracy where the rights of citizens are determine based upon a simply majority vote.

            “This pretty much sums up your mindset..right?”

            No, it does not.

          • B1jetmech

            “First you said that the SCOTUS decision in Obergefell amounts to “ruling over the rest of us”, then you said that “a minority of a population doesn’t dictate to the rest of us of which social constructs to embrace.”

            I don’t see a contradiction. THe court took power away from the states like Obergefell did. Leftist don’t get to set the agenda for the rest of us, Not hard to understand there “Russ”.

            “I have never used the word “tyranny” to describe votes in this situation.”

            That is because you embrace it. You would rather have more power to fewer individuals then have that power spread among the citizens.

            “votes restrict the rights of the minority for no reason than a majority agree with restricting those rights, then the majority is imposing its will on the minority in contravention to the protections provided by the Constitution.”

            False. Again, your abuse of the 14th doesn’t fly. Still playing that victim card of the being oppressed by the majority…

            “It is one of the functions of the Federal judiciary to rule on the constitutionality of laws.”

            If the Constitution is actually being applied in it’s original intent then yes. But not to be misused to push through liberal agenda like SCOTUS abuse of the 14th amendment.

          • acontraryview

            “I don’t see a contradiction.”

            I’m sure you don’t. It nonetheless exists.

            “THe court took power away from the states ”

            The states are not empowered to enforce laws that violate protections provided by the Federal Constitution. If you have questions about this, please refer to the 14th Amendment.

            “That is because you embrace it. ”

            That it false. I do not embrace tyranny.

            “False”

            What, specifically, did I say that was false?

            “But not to be misused to push through liberal agenda like SCOTUS abuse of the 14th amendment.”

            While you are certainly free to disagree with the ruling in this manner, either the courts are empowered to rule upon the constitutionality of laws or they are not. Their ability is not conditioned on your view of whether a ruling was good or bad. So which is it? Is the judiciary empowered to rule on the constitutionality of laws, or are they not?

            Or are you saying that they are empowered to do so as long as the way in which they rule is one you agree with, but not empowered to do so in a way in which you disagree with? If that is the case, then maybe we can just skip all the hearings and just have the court ask you how they should rule. We’ll just make you a SCOTUS of one.

          • B1jetmech

            “I’m sure you don’t. It nonetheless exists.”

            Here, I will go along to make you feel better since you go out of your way to these Christian websites.

            “The states are not empowered to enforce laws that violate protections provided by the Federal Constitution. If you have questions about this, please refer to the 14th Amendment.”

            Really? I didn’t know the 14A overruled 10th amendments. Now where in the 14A text does it state that? Must be that invisible ink again that only 5 leftist justices can read.

            “That it false. I do not embrace tyranny.”

            You sure like your power concentrated to an elite few.

            “What, specifically, did I say that was false?”

            About your fortune cookie phrase of the “majority is imposing its will on the minority”, hey if you can’t get along with society, don’t make society get along with you.

            “Is the judiciary empowered to rule on the constitutionality of laws, or are they not?”

            As long they rule with changing meanings of amendments and laws. because what is there to prevent s judge from changing the meaning of a law or the Constitution? Nothing…there is no recourse against judges who can. So, the only thing we have is if there any integrity in that judge. Because since abortion was ushered in, tens of millions have been killed just by few justices…but you son’t think this is law so why am I going on about?

            Too much power in one person can be dangerous.

            “Or are you saying that they are empowered to do so as long as the way in which they rule is one you agree with/”

            Well it seems to work for you, as you get your ruling if it involves mis interpreting an amendment or law…basically, it’s the ends justify the means with you.

            “If that is the case, then maybe we can just skip all the hearings and just have the court ask you how they should rule.”

            Or, just skip the legislative process and let the courts decide? That is your paradigm.

          • acontraryview

            “since you go out of your way to these Christian websites.”

            It’s not out of my way at all. Just requires a single click.

            “Really? I didn’t know the 14A overruled 10th amendments.”

            Amendments don’t overrule other amendments. They work together. I’ve provided this to you before, but I will do so again and perhaps this time you will be able to grasp what the 14th says: “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.”

            Please note the words “any law”. That means exactly what it says. Marriage laws are not exempt from the provisions of the 14th Amendment.

            “You sure like your power concentrated to an elite few.”

            How so?

            “”majority is imposing its will on the minority”

            How was that false?

            “Well it seems to work for you, as you get your ruling if it involves mis interpreting an amendment or law…basically, it’s the ends justify the means with you.”

            They are empowered to rule on the constitutionality of laws. Period. Sometimes the outcome of those rulings I agree with and sometimes I don’t. My agreement or disagreement is irrelevant to their ability to rule on the constitutionality of laws.

            “Or, just skip the legislative process and let the courts decide? That is your paradigm.”

            No, it is not my paradigm. Unless laws are in place, through the legislative process, there can be no challenge to those laws. If there is no challenge, there is no case to come before the court. There is nothing for the courts to decide.

          • B1jetmech

            “It’s not out of my way at all. Just requires a single click.”

            No, why do yo go out of your way to Christian websites?

            “Amendments don’t overrule other amendments. They work together.”

            No, they define limitations placed upon the Federal government and state sovereignty.

            I’ve provided this to you before, but I will do so again and perhaps this time you will be able to grasp what the 14th says:” ”

            “Please note the words “any law”. That means exactly what it says. Marriage laws are not exempt from the provisions of the 14th Amendment.”

            Now you understand…the 14th amendment is a civil war amendment that had NOTHING to do with marriage. It strictly applies to former slaves.

            Does the 16 amendment apply to marriage? What about the 17th?

            Well the answer is “No”.

            The 14th is written for a purpose like the other amendments.

            If there was no DredSCott decision by SCOTUS…then there would be no 14th amendment.

            The 14th is a reactionary amendment to reverse a bad decision handed down in the civil war era.

            “How was that false?”

            It’s called: Elections have consequences. Don’t like the results then go judge shopping to overturn the will of the people. A 21 century tactic used by liberals.

            “They are empowered to rule on the constitutionality of laws. Period.

            Only if it blatantly violates the Constitution. Not invisible ink issues that theoretically exist in the Constitution like homosexual marriage, abortion, Obamacare,ect.

            Congress can limit the courts even SCOTUS’s jurisdiction on cases. If congress doesn’t want SCOTUS deciding social issues then they can legislate into but it does have to be signed by the president. We know Obama won’t go for it. Congress does have that power.

            Sometimes the outcome of those rulings I agree with and sometimes I don’t. My agreement or disagreement is irrelevant to their ability to rule on the constitutionality of laws.

          • acontraryview

            “they define limitations placed upon the Federal government and state sovereignty.”

            One of the limitations on state sovereignty is: “No State shall…..deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

            “It strictly applies to former slaves.”

            You are incorrect. Is says: “deny to any person”. It does NOT say: “deny to any person who was a former slave”.

            “Does the 16 amendment apply to marriage? What about the 17th?

            Well the answer is “No”.”

            Agreed.

            “The 14th is written for a purpose like the other amendments.”

            Yes, and the purpose is quite clear. See above for clarity on the issue.

            “Don’t like the results then go judge shopping to overturn the will of the people.”

            As I have clearly pointed out, there is no ability to “judge shop” at the Federal level.

            “My agreement or disagreement is irrelevant to their ability to rule on the constitutionality of laws.”

            I’m glad we agree.

          • B1jetmech

            “One of the limitations on state sovereignty is: “No State shall…..deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

            “You are incorrect. Is says: “deny to any person”. It does NOT say: “deny to any person who was a former slave”

            Yes, to formers slaves.

            Did you if SCOTUS never ruled on Dred Scott there would have never been a 14th amendment? Because the ratification was reactionary, the 14th dealt specifically with former slaves of that time. One does not need law school to understand this.

            “Yes, and the purpose is quite clear. See above for clarity on the issue.”

            The 14th is no more applicable to marriage the 16th and 17th are.

            “As I have clearly pointed out, there is no ability to “judge shop” at the Federal level.”

            Oh really? Ninth circuit..the most overturn cases of any of the circuit courts because it is stuffed with liberals.

          • acontraryview

            So are you saying that it is unconstitutional for the judiciary to rule on the constitutionality of state laws?

          • B1jetmech

            When the court misuse a reconstruction era amendment that has nothing to with homosexual marriage…yes.

            Not hard to understand.

          • acontraryview

            Either it’s constitutional for the judiciary to rule on the constitutionality of state laws or it is not. The constitutionality of it is not dependent on your agreeing, or disagreeing, with any particular ruling.

            So which is it? Is it constitutional for the judiciary to rule on the constitutionality of state laws, or is it not?

          • B1jetmech

            …and what have I said over and over? What is not mentioned in the Constitution is left to the states.

            Marriage isn’t in the Constitution so it is a state matter.

            Understand?

          • acontraryview

            “Marriage isn’t in the Constitution so it is a state matter.”

            Agreed. And all state laws are subject to judicial review as to their constitutionality.

            Understand?

          • acontraryview

            “Homosexual marriage is law of the land now is what your saying?”

            Nope. Marriage within regard to the gender of the two people seeking to marry is now the law of the land.

          • B1jetmech

            So this is how you are trying to be crafty is saying homosexual marriage is the law of the land even though there is no law for it?

          • acontraryview

            The phrase “law of the land” does not refer to a particular law. It refers to something being legal in every state. It is the “law of the land” that you are allowed to use the internet. Yet there is no specific law that says you are.

          • B1jetmech

            Since you can’t flat out answer it, So I will ask again…is homosexual marriage law of the land now?

          • acontraryview

            I have flat out answered it, Russ. It is legal in every state for two citizens of the same gender to marry. Since it is legal in every state, it falls under the definition of “law of the land”.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            They did not create a law, they just ruled that certay laws are unconstitutional.

          • B1jetmech

            So by your logic, if they ruled certain laws unconstitutional then there is no new law?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Now you’re getting the idea.

          • B1jetmech

            I don’t get your point.

            Either laws are passed constitutionally or not. It’s really day and night here.

          • acontraryview

            It’s not a question of whether or not the laws were passed constitutionally. if’s a question of whether the law violates the constitution. In the case of laws that banned two citizens from entering into civil marriage based solely upon the gender of the two citizens, the SCOTUS has ruled that law to violate the protections provided by the Federal Constitution.

          • B1jetmech

            Yes it a question regarding how protocols are carried through the constitutional process.

            Since you all kept losing elections all across the board on homosexual marriage, you all had to bypass the legislative process and go through the back door with the courts.

            If SCOTUS ruled the law violated something and no new law, then how come homosexual marriage is the law of the land?

            You are not making sense here.

          • acontraryview

            “you all had to bypass the legislative process and go through the back door with the courts.”

            “through the back door” – sounds like Freudian slip there.

            Challenging laws in court is not “through the back door”. It is a vital part of our constitutional system.

            “then how come homosexual marriage is the law of the land?”

            Because it is legal in every state.

          • B1jetmech

            “through the back door” – sounds like Freudian slip there.”

            Yes, it’s a term used among some legal personal of using courts to make law rather legislate or amend the Constitution.

            “Challenging laws in court is not “through the back door”. It is a vital part of our constitutional system.”

            To strike down laws are make new ones? I’m confused by your positions of this.

            “Because it is legal in every state.”

            Oh! So the court is legislating form the bench! Did someone have to pat you on the back to burp that up?

          • acontraryview

            “Yes, it’s a term used among some legal personal of using courts to make law rather legislate or amend the Constitution.”

            Really? I’d love to know what “legal personal” use that term to describe courts making law. They obviously are very poorly informed “legal personal” since the courts do not make law.

            “To strike down laws are make new ones?”

            To rule on the constitutionality of laws. Courts do not make laws.

            “I’m confused by your positions of this.”

            Clearly. Starting with the fact that I only have one position, not multiple positions.

            “Oh! So the court is legislating form the bench!”

            Nope. The ruling created no law. The ruling struck down an existing law.

          • B1jetmech

            “Really? I’d love to know what “legal personal” use that term to describe courts making law. They obviously are very poorly informed “legal personal” since the courts do not make law.”

            One in particular person that uses that phrase has won 8 cases in front of SCOTUS. I can guarantee you that’s more then all the leftist combined on the court.

            “To rule on the constitutionality of laws. Courts do not make laws.”

            Yeesss, that’s like say courts don’t make laws, they interpret them…like abortion for example.

            “Nope. The ruling created no law. The ruling struck down an existing law”

            Then why must states conform to this non existent law then?

          • acontraryview

            “One in particular person that uses that phrase has won 8 cases in front of SCOTUS.”

            Who would that be?

            “Then why must states conform to this non existent law then?”

            Because there is no enforceable law that allows states to refuse to issue a marriage license to two otherwise qualified citizens of the same gender. Doing so would violate state law.

          • B1jetmech

            Mark Levin.

            “Doing so would violate state law.”

            Violate what law??? Since homosexual marriage isn’t law why are states complying with? Because the supreme court removed some aspects of DOMA?

            So for the last 238 years of the country’s existence homosexuals could have married but couldn’t because there were restrictions that had to be removed???

          • TheKingOfRhye

            They didn’t “remove some aspects of DOMA”, they ruled it unconstitutional. Now, the laws banning same-sex marriage are unenforceable. Therefore, same-sex marriage is legal.

          • B1jetmech

            They didn’t rule all of DOMA unconstitutional just parts of it.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “On June 26, 2015 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges that the 14th Amendment requires all U.S. state laws to recognize same-sex marriages.[185] This left Section 2 of DOMA as superseded and unenforceable.” (wikipedia)

            Section 3 was ruled unconstitutional in US v. Windsor, in 2013.

            OK, that leaves you with Section 1, I guess. “This Act may be cited as the “Defense of Marriage Act”.” I suppose we can keep that.

            Section 2 said “No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.” That seems blatantly unconstitutional to me. How is that not a violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause?
            “Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.”

          • B1jetmech

            I figured they left some left over.

          • acontraryview

            “Mark Levin.”

            Please cite the 8 cases that Mark Levin has argued before the SCOTUS and won.

            “Violate what law???”

            The law that says two unmarried, consenting, adults of legal age are allowed to enter into civil marriage.

            “Since homosexual marriage isn’t law why are states complying with?”

            Because to deny two citizens of the same gender access to a civil marriage license would violate existing law. See above for more information.

            “Because the supreme court removed some aspects of DOMA?”

            No. The SCOTUS action on DOMA had to do with federal recognition of marriages that were legally performed.

            “So for the last 238 years of the country’s existence homosexuals could have married but couldn’t because there were restrictions that had to be removed???”

            No. For the first 218 years of the country’s existence the law did not prevent them from entering into civil marriage. It was only when they applied for a license, were denied, and challenged the denial, and the courts ruled that existing law did not prevent two citizens of the same gender from entering into civil marriage, that states began to enact laws which expressly limited marriage to two people of opposite gender.

            Until those laws were passed, the existing laws did not exclude two citizens of the same gender from entering into marriage. If they had, there would have been no reason for states to pass new laws expressly limiting marriage to two people of opposite gender. It is those laws – the first of which was enacted in 1994 – that were found to violate the protections provided by the Federal Constitution.

            I’ll ask again: What is your issue with allowing two citizens of the same gender to enter into civil marriage?

          • B1jetmech

            “Please cite the 8 cases that Mark Levin has argued before the SCOTUS and won.”

            You can call him and ask him yourself at 1-800-381-3811.

            He does run a law firm during the day and his books are great!

            “The law that says two unmarried, consenting, adults of legal age are allowed to enter into civil marriage.”

            They were never a law legislated.

            “Because to deny two citizens of the same gender access to a civil marriage license would violate existing law.”

            But, but…obviously, the law was never legislated, but the court didn’t legislate so how did this law come about???

            “No. The SCOTUS action on DOMA had to do with federal recognition of marriages that were legally performed.”

            So SCOTUS rewrote an existing law? I pretty sure they struck down some parts of DOMA.

            “that states began to enact laws which expressly limited marriage to two people of opposite gender.”

            Which is perfectly legitimate.

            “If they had, there would have been no reason for states to pass new laws expressly limiting marriage to two people of opposite gender”

            Says who?

            “I’ll ask again: What is your issue with allowing two citizens of the same gender to enter into civil marriage?”

            I answered it elsewhere.

          • acontraryview

            So you can’t cite the 8 cases Levin argued before the SCOTUS (he didn’t, by the way) and won. Got it. Thanks.

            “They were never a law legislated.”

            Marriage laws have indeed been legislated and they are on the books.

            “obviously, the law was never legislated, but the court didn’t legislate so how did this law come about???”

            Laws regarding the ability of two, adult, consenting, non-closely related, unmarried persons were already on the books.

            “So SCOTUS rewrote an existing law?”

            Nope. They ruled parts of DOMA unconstitutional.

            “Which is perfectly legitimate.”

            Agreed. States are free to enact whatever laws they care to. In turn, citizens are free to challenge those laws in court. If the judiciary rules that the laws violate protections provided by the federal constitution, then the laws are no longer enforceable.

            “Says who?”

            Says the legislative bodies who passed such laws beginning in 1994.

          • B1jetmech

            You could have at least thanked me for giving you his contact number.

            Levin’s legal resume surpasses all the combined 5 left justices.

            If you do call him, he is very respectful just don’t talk over him when he’s speaking.

            “Marriage laws have indeed been legislated and they are on the books.”

            Yes, real marriage.

            “Nope. They ruled parts of DOMA unconstitutional”

            Correct, but that doesn’t create a new type of marriage which is the problem here.

            “In turn, citizens are free to challenge those laws in court.”

            Only if they have standing. ACLU has a few tips to get standing and which judge to go to.

            “If the judiciary rules that the laws violate protections provided by the federal constitution, then the laws are no longer enforceable.”

            Are you stating “unenforceable” as in court ordered or state can’t keep up?

          • acontraryview

            “You could have at least thanked me for giving you his contact number.”

            It is easily accessible online. But thanks for providing it.

            “Levin’s legal resume surpasses all the combined 5 left justices.”

            LOL. You are clearly very poorly informed about the legal resumes of the SCOTUS justices. Here is Levin’s legal resume: Levin worked in the administration of President Ronald Reagan and was a chief of staff for Attorney General Edwin Meese. Now, please compare that to the resumes of the SCOTUS justices and explain to me how Levin’s resume “surpasses all the combined 5 left justices”.

            “Correct, but that doesn’t create a new type of marriage”

            Nor has any new type of marriage been created. Marriage remains two, consenting, non-closely related, adults.

            “Only if they have standing.”

            Correct. The plaintiffs in Obergefell had standing as they were directly affected by laws denying them the right to marry.

            “Are you stating “unenforceable” as in court ordered or state can’t keep up?”

            Based upon a ruling that the laws violate protections provided by the Constitution.

          • B1jetmech

            “Here is Levin’s legal resume: Levin worked in the administration of President Ronald Reagan and was a chief of staff for Attorney General Edwin Meese.”

            …And Solicitor General for the Department of Interior. President of Landmark Legal foundation(a small legal firm) who deposed departments of EPA and Interior the 1990s.

            He is still working at Landmark to this day.

            Sp who is poorly informed???

            “Nor has any new type of marriage been created. Marriage remains two, consenting, non-closely related, adults.”

            Prior to the day you were born, Marriage has always been between a man and Woman, especially in civil societies. If Marriage was just between two consenting adults then how come the supreme court had to get involved?… to change the definition. You may define it that way, now, But it still NOT marriage. No matter how much the government tries to create it. …rights don’t come from government. Marriage isn’t a right.

            “Correct. The plaintiffs in Obergefell had standing as they were directly affected by laws denying them the right to marry.”

            Not true, because no one was making the plaintiffs marry anyone. The plaintiffs cold have married people of the opposite sex just like the rest of society.

            “Based upon a ruling that the laws violate protections provided by the Constitution.”

            Obviously the ruling did violate protections to state sovereignty.

          • acontraryview

            “…And Solicitor General for the Department of Interior. President of Landmark Legal foundation(a small legal firm) who deposed departments of EPA and Interior the 1990s.

            He is still working at Landmark to this day.”

            Yes, I was aware of that. Now, back to my question: Now, please compare that to the resumes of the SCOTUS justices and explain to me how Levin’s resume “surpasses all the combined 5 left justices”.

            “how come the supreme court had to get involved?”

            Because states passed laws, beginning in 1994, that specifically limited marriage to two people of opposite gender. Prior to 1994, such restrictions were not spelled out in law. The Supreme Court got involved because citizens, as is their right, challenged the constitutionality of those laws, and, despite winning those cases in every district in the country with the exception of one, those who wanted to continue to restrict the rights of citizens based solely upon gender, appealed those rulings to the Supreme Court.

            “But it still NOT marriage. ”

            Then way does it matter to you?

            “rights don’t come from government.”

            Civil rights do.

            “Marriage isn’t a right.”

            The state offers marriage licenses to citizens. In that offering, marriage becomes a right that citizens have access to.

            “Not true, because no one was making the plaintiffs marry anyone. ”

            The law that was challenged negatively impacted Obergefell. Therefore, Obergefell had standing.

            States are not protected to put in place laws which violate protections of the Federal Constitution. The 14th Amendment makes that very clear.

          • B1jetmech

            “Yes, I was aware of that.”

            I highly doubt it.

            “Now, back to my question: Now, please compare that to the resumes of the SCOTUS justices and explain to me how Levin’s resume “surpasses all the combined 5 left justices”.

            He had won cases from SCOTUS…how many did each of the 5 liberals ones have? Did the other 5 manage a law firm? Did they write multiple books…I mean write themselves, not ghostwrite? Did any of the 5 ever take an administration to court?

            “beginning in 1994, that specifically limited marriage to two people of opposite gender. Prior to 1994, such restrictions were not spelled out in law.”

            Which they have every right to. If the states can’t decide for themselves(you know the citizens) then how come they are given power in Article 5 of the Constitution to amend the Constitution without congress?

            “The Supreme Court got involved because citizens, as is their right, challenged the constitutionality of those laws”

            Obviously the court is stealing power, congress doesn’t reign the courts…so the states might have to deal with it themselves per article 5…hmmmm.

            “Then way does it matter to you?”

            Because we don’t need you all modifying marriage without our consent. You want to mess with institutions, then you will have to answer for it.

            “The state offers marriage licenses to citizens. In that offering, marriage becomes a right that citizens have access to.”

            Sounds like a privilege.

            “The law that was challenged negatively impacted Obergefell. Therefore, Obergefell had standing.”

            It’s really just “spin” What other way did the court try to justify themselves stealing this decision making from the people. A court that doesn’t respect the people deserves no respect at all.

            “The 14th Amendment makes that very clear.”

            It’s a civil war amendment for crying out loud.

          • acontraryview

            “He had won cases from SCOTUS”

            So you claim but are unable to cite any.

            “Did the other 5 manage a law firm? Did they write multiple books…I mean write themselves, not ghostwrite? Did any of the 5 ever take an administration to court?”

            I’d suggest you review their resumes to find out the answers to your questions. Writing books does not qualify one to be a SCOTUS justice.

            “You want to mess with institutions, then you will have to answer for it.”

            How will we have to answer for it?

            “Sounds like a privilege.”

            It is not.

            “A court that doesn’t respect the people deserves no respect at all.”

            You are certainly entitled to your opinion. The court exists to ensure that the majority does not vote away the rights of the minority.

            “It’s a civil war amendment for crying out loud.”

            Regardless of when it was passed, it says what it says.

          • B1jetmech

            “So you claim but are unable to cite any.”

            Call him yourself at 1800-381-3811 and verify yourself.

            “I’d suggest you review their resumes to find out the answers to your questions. Writing books does not qualify one to be a SCOTUS justice.”

            One does not have to be a lawyer to be a SCOTUS justice.

            To Levin’s credit, he has got his hands dirty over and over in cases with against the government. THis is on top of his authorship.

            “How will we have to answer for it?”

            You sound like some federal judge.

            “You are certainly entitled to your opinion. The court exists to ensure that the majority does not vote away the rights of the minority.”

            That phrase only gained traction after the 2003 Lawrence vs Texas decision. The Constitution does not support that statement.

            “Regardless of when it was passed, it says what it says.”

            …and there’s there’s problem…this civil war amendment doesn’t say anything about marriage.

          • acontraryview

            “this civil war amendment doesn’t say anything about marriage.”

            It says “any law”. That includes marriage laws.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            My point is a new law doesn’t have to be made for another one to ruled unconstitutional. Obergefell is hardly the first time such a thing has happened, either.

          • B1jetmech

            Then by your standard, homosexual marriage is not the law of the land then?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            It is legal, but a new law wasn’t needed to make it so. I keep coming back to this, but it’s just like Loving v Virginia again. The Supreme Court did the same thing then, ruled that certain laws saying some people couldn’t marry some others were unconstitutional.

          • B1jetmech

            Obviously, there has to be a law to justify this. It sounds like the states can just opt out because there is no law.

            WE know for sure, there was no law through the legislative process per article 1 Section 1 of the Constitution. So what ever you call it, law or anything else, it’s illegitimate.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Answer me this, then: Why are there no states that have laws banning interracial marriage? According to you, states should be free to do so if they wish, right?

          • B1jetmech

            Because the old democrats died off.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Wrong…..

            A few states even had anti-miscegenation laws on the books for quite some time after the Loving v Virginia decision, until 2000 in Alabama, in fact. But those states did not enforce those laws….because of the Supreme Court’s decision that those laws were unconstitutional. There never was a law or an amendment written that said interracial marriage is legal everywhere. There didn’t need to be.

          • B1jetmech

            The issue of racism has been addressed in so many different ways since the 1800’s.

            Like I said, the old democrats died off so those old stereotypes died with them. The laws they passed were ignored and not enforced.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            The issue of homophobia is starting to be addressed in many different ways…..

            But that’s not even the point, really. Legally, this is exactly the same as Loving. The Loving decision made anti-miscegenation laws unenforceable. Obergefell made laws banning SSM unenforceable. No new laws were written, but the decisions had the force of law. If you call one case ‘legislating from the bench’, so is the other. Call it that if you want, but I think it’s a good thing they have that power.

            And you’ve said a few times that marriage is just a state matter? For one thing, the Constitution still applies to state laws….and if it was just a state matter, why are there over 1000 benefits to marriage given at the federal level?

          • B1jetmech

            The process to legalize homosexual marriage is being replicated the same as blacks in the civil rights movement. On top of that, we don’t even know what makes a person homosexual..it’s just emotion that drives them.

            I know ,because I use to be homosexual and left it 27 years ago and never looked back because of my new found faith Christ.

            I’m afraid for the curt to have the kind of power, For instance, the court is telling the Obama administration that it doesn’t have to enforce immigration laws so we have influx of illegals. The Obama administration can use the EPA and bypass congress on emission rules which will cut our energy output and put us into third world status.

            Better be careful what you wish for.

            THe reason for so many tax benefits because the government promoted having children to grow the population. That has been replaced with young illegals coming across the border and marriage is just hitch for tax benefits nothing else.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Maybe you’re misunderstanding me, I’m not trying to turn this into a discussion of how sexual orientation is like or not like race, I’m just saying legally, it’s the same situation. I could have used some other example of another law the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional. Some people seem to be acting like this is a new thing the Supreme Court is doing, when it’s anything but that.

            “we don’t even know what makes a person homosexual”

            Does it really matter? Does it really matter if it’s genetic, or environmental, or some combination of things? What difference does it make? You say “it’s just emotion that drives them”….isn’t everybody driven by emotion? We’re humans, not Vulcans, you know.

          • B1jetmech

            “Does it really matter? Does it really matter if it’s genetic, or environmental, or some combination of things? ”

            Well it does because we are created and didn’t come about by some cosmic accident. God designed us a certain way. We are created in his image and he knows whats best for us.

            That is why he created us as man and woman and to be in a marriage as such.

            The reason people feel they are homosexuals is because of sin. We’re all born with sin it affects us all differently. So when a gay person says they are born that way, in a way they are right…it’s the sin.

            I found this out because I left homosexuality 27 years ago and haven’t looked backed.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            You said “marriage is just hitch for tax benefits nothing else”….that kind of illustrates my point, in a way. The federal government are the ones giving out all these tax breaks and other sorts of benefits of marriage. That was a big issue, kind of the whole point really, of Obergefell and US v Windsor. It’s mainly benefits on the federal level that are being given, so it’s not really a state matter. If the federal gov’t didn’t give out any benefits, would they care that some states banned some types of marriages and some didn’t? (aside from how they might possibly be violating the “Full Faith and Credit Clause” maybe…)

          • B1jetmech

            When I got married it wasn’t for the money. I just found it odd that certain people do.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Argh……I never said people get married just for the money. I’m sure there are some people that do, that’s not my point at all. I’m saying that’s the main reason why it’s a federal issue. Because there are benefits given by the federal government.

          • B1jetmech

            And I will say again, I got married for NO benefits form the federal government.

            So it was worth changing the definition of marriage just for these few bennies’ from government?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            It was worth it for other reasons besides that. I thought it should have been pretty clear by now I’m all for SSM. Of course I think it’s ‘worth it’. Strange question to be asking me….

            Just because people don’t get married FOR the benefits, that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t care about them.

          • B1jetmech

            I figured you were for SSM.

            I’m against it because number 1.) God

            and I use to be a homosexual and left it. I know they can to but only if they seek the Lord and repent of their sin.

            It wouldn’t be anything like “praying the gay away” it takes time for some people, God works in thier lives in a way they overcome.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I don’t see how that because you “use to be a homosexual and left it” and “they can to” (which is really debatable, because, sure, someone can stop having homosexual activity, but that’s not the same thing as sexual orientation) are any kind of good reasons to deny others the right to marry someone of the same sex.

          • B1jetmech

            What you are describing is “sin”.

            WE cannot leave it on our own will. ONLY God can do it for us. We are too weak…that is why we must rely on God and not man. but this only applies when a person seeks the Lord.

          • acontraryview

            That is absolutely correct.

          • B1jetmech

            The homosexual marriage isn’t the law of the land then…

          • acontraryview

            It is in the sense that it is legal in every state for two otherwise qualified citizens of the same gender to enter into civil marriage. There is no specific law which states that it is, nor is any necessary.

          • B1jetmech

            So it’s the law of the land then right? A state can’t refuse marriage license because it’s law…I mean…no other way!

          • acontraryview

            There is no enforceable law which allows a state to refuse to issue a marriage license to two citizens based solely on the gender of those citizens.

          • B1jetmech

            That doesn’t make sense and only hear from your side if that.

            Then again, it’s like SCOTUS rather striking down Obmacare, the rewrote it without sending it to Congress and then upheld it once they got the THEIR wording right.

            Sounds like homosexual marriage is an illegitimate law.

          • acontraryview

            “That doesn’t make sense”

            What part did not make sense to you?

            “the rewrote it without sending it to Congress”

            What wording in the ACA was different after the SCOTUS ruling than it was before?

            “Sounds like homosexual marriage is an illegitimate law.”

            There is no law which specifically states that two citizens of the same gender are allowed to enter into civil marriage. Marriage laws, in general, state that the requirements for marriage are: two, consenting, non-married, adults. Period. Two people of the same gender, whether homosexual or not, are allowed to marry. What is it you are having such a hard time understanding about that?

          • B1jetmech

            How did SCOTUS rule in favor of Obamacare? By rewriting it as a tax.

            I’ll reapeat it…they rewrote it as a tax.

            Again…THey rewrote it as a tax.

            Not sink in yet?

            They rewrote it as a tax…”they”, SCOTUS.

            They changed the law without sending it to congress for congress to do because if they did, then congress would have sit on it because the republicans took over.

            If there is no law then why are states having to comply with some lawlessness form the supreme court then?

            I ask because since there is no law then no one is compelled to honor a homosexual marriage.

          • acontraryview

            If they “rewrote” it, then please point out to me the sections that were rewritten as a result of their ruling.

            “If there is no law”

            There are laws – marriage laws. They do not exclude two citizens of the same gender from entering into civil marriage.

            “then no one is compelled to honor a homosexual marriage.”

            You are free to honor or not honor whatever you care to. No one can be compelled to honor something.

          • B1jetmech

            You will have to ask the SCOTUS justices who ruled in favor of that way…particularly John Roberts. Ask him why he didn’t send the bill back to Congress..and why did they convert the bill to rubber stamp it as a tax like the SCOTUS of the 1930’s did for social security.

            “There are laws – marriage laws. They do not exclude two citizens of the same gender from entering into civil marriage.”

            Since the supreme court came in a and legislated it…which is illegal of course…they are not a legislating body.

            “You are free to honor or not honor whatever you care to. No one can be compelled to honor something.”

            Illegitimate laws don’t require honoring, since the constitutional process to bring such laws into existence has been bypassed.

          • acontraryview

            “Since the supreme court came in a and legislated it…which is illegal of course…they are not a legislating body.”

            To “legislate” means to create, modify, or repeal” laws. The SCOTUS did not do any of those things. They did not legislate.

            “Illegitimate laws don’t require honoring”

            As you have stated, there is no law which specifically states that two citizens of the same gender are allowed to marry. Just as there is no specific laws that states that two citizens of different race are allowed to marry. Therefore, there is no “illegitimate law”, as no law was brought into existence.

          • B1jetmech

            “The SCOTUS did not do any of those things. They did not legislate.”

            Obviously, they did because now we have legalized homosexual marriage…like it’s always been in the existence of laws since the nations founding, but the states were just holding them back.

            “Just as there is no specific laws that states that two citizens of different race are allowed to marry. Therefore, there is no “illegitimate law”, as no law was brought into existence.”

            But we have this problem of the supreme court creating this law but it’s not a law. They did it by removing some restrictions because states want continuity and not collapse to every social experiment that comes up form the liberals. Which is why matters like this are left to that states.

          • acontraryview

            You believe, falsely, that the 14th Amendment applies only to former slaves, when it clearly says “no citizen” and makes to reference to former slaves.

            You believe, falsely, that the 14th Amendment is not applicable to marriage laws, when it clearly says “no law”.

            You believe, falsely, that the act of striking down a law results in new law being created.

            You believe, falsely, that striking down a law amounts to legislating.

            You believe, falsely, that the states are empowered to enforce any law they care to even if the law violates the protections provided by the Federal Constitution.

            You believe, falsely, that there can be judge shopping when there is only one federal court in each district and only one SCOTUS.

            So, B1jetmech, I will leave you to your false beliefs. There is no point in discussing a topic if the other person is adamant about holding on to beliefs that are not factually true.

            The bottom line is this: It is now legal for two citizens of the same gender to enter into civil marriage. Like it or not, that is not going to change. Life will go on. It will be fine.

            I wish you well.

          • B1jetmech

            We’ll be seeing you around.

          • acontraryview

            “It created a law”

            Please cite the specific law that the SCOTUS created.

            “overriding the 10th amendment”

            Ruling that a law enacted at the state level violates the protections of the federal constitution does not “override” the 10th amendment. The 10th Amendment provides that states are empowered to create laws which apply in their states. It does NOT provide that those laws are free from judicial review and ruling. The 14th Amendment clearly states that any and all laws that are enacted at the state level are subject to challenge regarding whether they violate protections provided by the federal constitution.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            The 14th Amendment and the Supremacy Clause.

          • B1jetmech

            “Please cite the specific law that the SCOTUS created.”

            Yes Sir!

            Abortion.

            “Ruling that a law enacted at the state level violates the protections of the federal constitution does not “override” the 10th amendment.”

            You don’t know what you are talking about here…. because homosexual marriage was not law and not legislated through congress. It didn’t exist. It was left to the states.

            “The 10th Amendment provides that states are empowered to create laws which apply in their states.”

            The tenth amendment defines what is not mention in the Constitution after all said and done is left to the states to decide…understand?

            “It does NOT provide that those laws are free from judicial review and ruling.”

            Judicial review is not in the Constitution.

            ” The 14th Amendment clearly states that any and all laws that are enacted at the state level are subject to challenge regarding whether they violate protections provided by the federal constitution.”

            No it does not and this where you all get it WRONG.

            The 14A is a post reconstruction amendment that was ratified to counter the Dred-Scott decision that denied former slaves standing to sue in court. It has NOTHING to do with homosexual marriage or marriage for that matter.

            That matter is left to the states since marriage is NOT in the Constitution.

          • acontraryview

            “Yes Sir!

            Abortion.”

            Abortion is not a law. It is an act. Try again.

            “The tenth amendment defines what is not mention in the Constitution after all said and done is left to the states to decide…understand?”

            Yes, I do understand. What you seem to fail to understand is that all state laws are challengeable in court and the judiciary is empowered to rule upon the constitutionality of any laws that are challenged.

            “Judicial review is not in the Constitution.”

            You are mistaken. Article III of the Constitution: “The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. . . . The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States”

            “No it does not and this where you all get it WRONG.”

            You are mistaken. From the 14th: “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.”

            “It has NOTHING to do with homosexual marriage or marriage for that matter.”

            It covers any law – regardless of the topic. Please see above “any law”.

            “That matter is left to the states since marriage is NOT in the Constitution.”

            Then you believe that the SCOTUS should not rule on the constitutionality of any state law vis-a-vis protections provided by the federal Constitution? If that were the case, how would the protections provided by the 14th Amendment be secured, Russ? It is Russ, isn’t it? Minus the capitalization and multiple exclamation points.

          • B1jetmech

            “Abortion is not a law. It is an act. Try again.”

            Are you this stupid? I’m not getting personal but for you to say something like that, when abortion has been challenged over the years and judges rule time and time again that pro life laws are UNCONSTITUTIONAL, do you think they speaking of law?

            “Yes, I do understand. What you seem to fail to understand is that all state laws are challengeable in court and the judiciary is empowered to rule upon the constitutionality of any laws that are challenged.”

            No, I don’t think you do, because your side goes “Judge shopping” when you lose election and over turn the “will of the people” If a law is outside the jurisdiction of of the judiciary then they can’t take it.

            “You are mistaken. Article III of the Constitution: “The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. . . . The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States”

            I’m talking about the court giving itself the power to have the final say, that was marburry vs Madison was about. That is NOT in the Constitution. especially in article III. Judicial review does not come form Article III but Marbury vs Madison.

            “It covers any law – regardless of the topic. Please see above “any law”.

            Once again, since marriage is not tin the Constitution, it is left to the states. once again.

            Protections as out lined in the 14A are directed at those of former slaves, not a free for all for liberal agendas.

          • acontraryview

            “when abortion has been challenged over the years and judges rule time and time again that pro life laws are UNCONSTITUTIONAL, do you think they speaking of law?”

            Laws restricting abortion have been challenged. Some of those laws have been struck down. Some have been upheld. Let me guess – the court shouldn’t have ruled on the laws that it struck down, but was correct to rule on the laws it upheld, right?

            “No, I don’t think you do, because your side goes “Judge shopping” when you lose election and over turn the “will of the people””

            This issue has worked its way through the federal court system all the way up to the SCOTUS. There is only one federal court for each district and only one SCOTUS. So, please tell me how “judge shopping” was accomplished.

            “If a law is outside the jurisdiction of of the judiciary then they can’t take it.”

            No law is outside of the judiciary.

            “Once again, since marriage is not tin the Constitution, it is left to the states. once again.”

            There is no question that the creation of laws regarding marriage is left to the states. Once again, there is also no question that those laws are subject to judicial review. Once again.

            “Protections as out lined in the 14A are directed at those of former slaves, not a free for all for liberal agendas.”

            Please cite where the protections of the 14th Amendment apply only to “former slaves”.

          • B1jetmech

            Your idiotic response of Abortion isn’t law, but an act was reprehensible. No wonder you are all jacked up with the 14th amendment or anything constitutional.

            WE give hundreds of millions of dollars to plan parenthood so they can continue the genocide here in America. Why are we spending tax payer money on such a slaughter? Does it have anything to do that abortion is legal…a law…passed illegally by a activist supreme court who made up the right to privacy?

            Is there invisible ink in the constitution that only your side can read?

            “here is no question that the creation of laws regarding marriage is left to the states. Once again, there is also no question that those laws are subject to judicial review. Once again.”

            So judicial review is another word for judge shopping? Don’t like an outcome of an election go squealing to a judge.

            “Please cite where the protections of the 14th Amendment apply only to “former slaves”.”

            I’m not citing anything for if you just read up on it yourself and read the letters by the authors for the 14A…I shouldn’t have to “burp” you on the matter.

          • acontraryview

            “Your idiotic response of Abortion isn’t law, but an act was reprehensible.”

            You are certainly entitled to your opinion but my statement is factually accurate.

            “Why are we spending tax payer money on such a slaughter?”

            No taxpayer money is used to provide abortions.

            “passed illegally by a activist supreme court who made up the right to privacy?”

            The SCOTUS passed no law regarding abortion.

            “So judicial review is another word for judge shopping?”

            One cannot shop for federal judges. Cases are randomly assigned. There is only one federal court for each district. There is only one SCOTUS. There is no “shopping”.

            “Don’t like an outcome of an election go squealing to a judge.”

            Oh, you mean like Bush did regarding the election results in Florida? Our system of government allows for citizens to challenge laws in court. Would you prefer that citizens were NOT allowed such a right?

            “I’m not citing anything for if you ”

            So you can’t cite where the 14th Amendment applies only to “former slaves”. Got it. Thanks.

          • B1jetmech

            “You are certainly entitled to your opinion but my statement is factually accurate.”

            LOL! Somethings can be so disgusting it’s laughable.

            Reminds me of the the genocide that took place in Auschwitz like concentration camps. The Nazi’s carried out everything with “law” as well….No written orders, nothing. Still murdered million jews without any kind of edict or law.

            “No taxpayer money is used to provide abortions.”

            Guess you don’t know your own obamacare “mandates”

            “The SCOTUS passed no law regarding abortion.”

            yet over 50 million slaughtered? Something isn’t right about your statement,

            “One cannot shop for federal judges. Cases are randomly assigned. There is only one federal court for each district. There is only one SCOTUS. There is no “shopping”.

            So as long cases are brought before a court like Lawrence vs. Texas and leftist friendly judges can take the cases. Believe me, the ACLU types know and have it down to a science.

          • acontraryview

            “Guess you don’t know your own obamacare “mandates””

            Yes, I do. But apparently, you do not.

            “Something isn’t right about your statement,”

            Please cite what law SCOTUS passed regarding abortion.

            “So as long cases are brought before a court like Lawrence vs. Texas and leftist friendly judges can take the cases. Believe me, the ACLU types know and have it down to a science.”

            Believe as you like, but the fact remains that there is only one federal court in each district and only one SCOTUS. There is no “shopping”.

          • B1jetmech

            “Yes, I do. But apparently, you do not.”

            Let’s hear it, you don’t have to quote actual texts because they are long and boring. But if Obamacare doesn’t cover abortion then you are wrong(again).

            There was a Michigan congressman that was the deciding vote but held out because Obamacare was being rammed through and it had abortion coverage in it. They couldn’t go back and change because the senate had already passed it which was illegal. So Obama told the congressman they he would use an executive order and remove that provision.

            The Congressman went along and Obama never removed that provision because he loves abortion and presidents can modify laws even though Obama doesn’t without retribution.

            “Please cite what law SCOTUS passed regarding abortion”

            Are you just pretending it never happened?

            “Believe as you like, but the fact remains that there is only one federal court in each district and only one SCOTUS. There is no “shopping”.

            Just like there is no abortion law?

        • acontraryview

          Apparently it went over your head that the courts did not create legislation in their ruling on same-gender marriage.

          • B1jetmech

            When you hear it’s the law of the land from supporters then it’s law, So Article 1 section of the constitution doesn’t mean anything?

          • acontraryview

            The phrase “law of the land” does not refer to any particular law. it is a phrase used to describe the legality of a particular action in every place in the country.

            “So Article 1 section of the constitution doesn’t mean anything?”

            Of course it does. Why do you ask?

    • Cady555

      The court did not legislate.

      The court looked at the laws to see whether the comply with the Constitution.

      The Constitution requires equal protection. If a government extends a right or a service, it cannot arbitrarily exclude some people from that benefit. If a state government recognizes secular marriages and extends privileges and benefits to people in secular marriages, it cannot exclude some people. They especially cannot exclude some people because of the religious beliefs of others.

      Gay people exist.

      Families headed by gay couples exist. Many gay couples have been together for decades.

      The government has no basis for failing to recognize those families and denying legal protection to those families. The government cannot make decisions based on the religious prejudices of some.

      • B1jetmech

        And which law did the court look at to see if it complied with the Constitution?

        The 14th amendment? That was a reconstruction era amendment that was ratified in response to the supreme courts decision in the Dredd-Scott case that prevented former slaves from being citizens.

        This amendment has NOTHING to do with homosexual marriage let alone marriage.

        However, the 14A is being used to justify every liberal behavior cause.

        Do you have anything else in the Constitution to justify your position?

        The court may have struck down parts of DOMA but technically homosexuals can’t get married because there are no federal laws on the books passed by congress.

        Gay do exist but we don’t know what makes them gay, we only have their word for it.

        But thieves exist, murderers exist too..so what’s your point?

        I did support civil unions for homosexuals because I believe property rights for the individual. However, this was not good enough for them so they decided to change the definition of marriage without the rest of societies consent.

        • Cady555

          “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.”

          • B1jetmech

            The 14A was ratified for former slaves that were being denied their standing to sue in court per Dred-Scott decision.

            Has nothing to do with homosexual marriage or marriage for that matter.

            Marriage is left to the states.

          • gizmo23

            So was slavery at one time. This is 2016

          • B1jetmech

            “So was slavery at one time. This is 2016”

            You are not making sense, better “edit” your remark.

          • Guest

            Marriage is a civil contract and contracts are most certainly regulated by the federal government. The court said that a common licensing restriction on the sexes of the cosigners ON the contract was unconstitutional as per the 14th amendment’s right to equal protection under the law

            Think name another civil contract that is limited to who can sign it by the sex of the signer.

          • B1jetmech

            So where in the Constitution does the feds have a right to regulate marriage?

            I’ll help you. It’s not in there and the 14A amendment doesn’t apply since it’s a reconstruction era amendment that was ratified for former slaves that didn’t have standing to sue in court.

            So, I don’t remembering the states surrendering to the feds the power to define marriage…it was a state issue all along unless congress intervened.

          • Guest

            Where does it say the feds can regulate civil contracts? Seriously? How about the contracts clause, full faith and credit clause 14th amendment.

            The question is where did you get the idea they couldn’t regulate contracts?

          • B1jetmech

            We are talking about Marriage, not some legal jumbo written down on countless pieces of paper.

            Is this your back door legal argument into justifying homosexual marriage?

            If you want to make a contract with someone then go ahead, We made it simple an got a marriage certificate.

          • Guest

            As far as the government is concerned the contract is the only marriage there is.

          • B1jetmech

            The government represents the people, the people voted over and over again on this matter only to have the election stolen form then by some unelected judges. \Obviously, the lawful system to legalise something was NOT used.

          • Guest

            Can’t have laws that do unconstitutional things

          • B1jetmech

            It was never unconstitutional until 5 justices on the supreme court said otherwise.

            That is called an oligarch. That is not how laws are made, go through the legislative process and not the back door.

          • Guest

            Now that’s just sour grapes. Sorry, they found licensing restrictions on the civil contract unconstitutional in Loving and in Obergfell.

            Oh well

          • B1jetmech

            They did it by bastardizing the 14A which has nothing to do with homosexual marriage.

            If laws are to be relevant then there is a certain Constitution process to go through like in Article 1 Section 1.

            On top of this, the 10th amendment is being ignored…you know part of the original “Bill of Rights”

            The 5 justices were just being political, in realty this was out of their jurisdiction because it was left to the states.

          • Guest

            Well its obvious you don’t understand the issues involved or do and just don’t like the answer they give you:

            1) All that happened is that an unconstitutional licensing restriction on the civil contract of Marriage was struck down. No laws were made, bad laws were nullified. Just like the court did in the Loving involving marriage.

            2) The 10th amendment doesn’t give the right to put unconstitutional licensing restriction on a contract. It does allow things like states that have recognized a civil right regarding veteran status, sexual orientation, etc. That is what the 9th and 10th amendments are about.

          • B1jetmech

            The feeling is mutual.

            1.) You seem to gloss over the fact that the 14A was NEVER, I’ll repeat, NEVER intended to decide anything regarding marriage which what the SCOUTS based their decision on, you know 5 justices. So it’s misusing the law.

            2.) You have no understanding of the 10th amendment because it was never taught to you. You ignore like judges do. It was NEVER rescinded per amendment process so it applies. What you and some these judges have done is amend the 10th amendment with the 14A which was never the case and push through your liberal agenda because you kept losing at the ballet box.

          • Guest

            Your idea of the ‘intent’ of the amendment is irrelevant, it defined certain rights without restriction. Get in your TARDIS and complain to the authors, not me.

            And maybe we are talking about some different 10th amendment:

            The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

            Since the Contracts Clause, Full Faith & Credit Clause and the 14th that forbids states from denying any person “life, liberty or property, without due process of law” or to “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” most certainly does apply to even the civil contract title Marriage, it seems you just don’t understand the issues involved.

          • B1jetmech

            If you ever, I mean ever read the authors of the amendment then you might have an understanding the Bill of rights, of course pending your political persuasion doesn’t get in the way.

            The 14A is a reconstruction amendment that was ratified against a supreme court that ruled on the Dred-Scott decision. You are just throwing out full faith a credit clause which doesn’t apply to this circumstance since homosexual marriage was never legislated on.

            We’re discussing the Constitutional means to legislate and that he framers did NOT leave that tot he courts. You keep side stepping here with your issue of “contracts”, we’re not talking contracts but the process of legislating. SCOTUS cannot legislate which what they did by over stepping the 10th amendment.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            “They did it by bastardizing the 14A which has nothing to do with homosexual marriage.”

            No, but it has everything to do with equal protection. Who are you to say right to marry is not included in equal protection?

          • B1jetmech

            If you want it to apply it to your cause then pass a law or amend the Constitution.

          • B1jetmech

            You are still stuck on this notion of contracts?

            We’re talking legislating here not contracts.

            14A is a reconstruction amendment that was ratified against the dred-Scott Ruling from SCOTUS that denied former slaves standing to sue in court. You keep burping up hte 14A, I;ll keep correcting you as it’s intent.

            The 14A is NOT a free for all for liberal issues. The Supreme court started this mess with Obergefell decision for the first time injecting the 14A into social issues which are left to the states.

          • Guest

            Please. That you ‘forget’ Loving just makes you look manipulative. And again if you think the 14th amendment should have been worded differently jump in you TARDIS and complain to them for your perceived incompetence. Like it or not the 14th says what it says and it means what it says.

            And since the fact that marriage is a civil contract blows your arguments away I can understand why you don’t like bringing it up and I do. 🙂

          • B1jetmech

            Like marriage, you are redefining what the 14A means.

            It has nothing to do with marriage period.

            Could it be possible that some judge can misuse the constitution to get a certain decision? Absolutely!

            The only reason your side knows anything about he 14A is because of it’s justification by just 5 judges in black robes.That’s it, no historical context to application.

          • Guest

            And like marriage you don’t understand what the 14th Amendment does – anything related to how citizens are affected by the law is under its purview.

          • B1jetmech

            The 14th amendment is taken WAY out of context here. It was not written with marriage issues in mind. It was ratified by the states in response to SCOTUS’s ruling on Dred-Scott. The 14th amendment applies to the former slaves of that time.

          • Guest

            No, the 14th amendment never mentions race:

            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.

            Race might have been the spark but obviously the authors of the amendment knew what they were saying…

          • B1jetmech

            When was the 14th amendment ratified and why?

            “Race might have been the spark but obviously the authors of the amendment knew what they were saying…”

            You definitely need to read the authors intent in writing of the 14th amendment.

            “Oh, and yes, all civil contracts are governed by laws and all laws are covered under the 14th amendment.”

            No, they are not. Did Dred-Scott take his case all the way to the supreme court for a breach of contract???

          • Guest

            You do realize that Dredd Scott was before the 14th right? They made the 14th to prevent that kind of thing from happening again, for all citizens. The era of special rights for some people ended, no matter the race, the sex, or the sexual orientation.

          • B1jetmech

            Yes and the 14th was ratified in response to he SCOTUS decision of Dredd Scott.

            But hold on now…the authors had NO intent of including marriage. Only SCOTUS in the olbergefell decision in 2003 began the marriage of the 14th amendment to homosexual marriage

          • Guest

            They intended to include all laws which means all civil contracts – including Marriage.

          • B1jetmech

            I’m sure Ginsburg, Sulter, Kennedy, Sotomayor and Kagan can find it in the invisible ink of the 14th amendment.

          • Guest

            “Any person” it says, nothing invisible about it.

          • B1jetmech

            Since the authors said nothing of the 14th regarding marriage…that must mean you’re wrong…Did the 5 justice overrule the authors of the 14th amendment?

          • Guest

            Again marriage is just a civil contract, like an adoption contract, defined and regulated by laws which are all covered by laws and all laws are covered by the 14th amendment.

            Why do you think one contract would be mentioned when it’s already covered?

          • Cady555

            The 14th Amendment is part of United State’s Constitution. Everyone is entitled to equal protection at every level of government.

          • B1jetmech

            Just as I been telling these folks, the 14th amendment was ratified as a response to SCOTUS decision in Dred Scott decision. It has nothing to do with marriage and because of that, it is left to the states to decide.

          • Cady555

            You need to think through what you are saying. The 14th Amendment applied the restrictions of the Bill of Rights to all levels of government.

            Do you think your local government can order all churches to be closed? Do you think a state can forbid public assemblies to watch sporting events. Do you think a mayor or governor can make it a crime to criticize government officials?

            Absurd, right? The reason is that the 14th Amendment expanded Bill of Rights protections regardless of the level of government. Equal protection under the law is exactly that.

          • B1jetmech

            How so? The authors of the 14th amendment mentioned nothing of it. Where are you getting your information?

            If the 14A amended any part of the bill of rights then it would have stated so, but it didn’t.

            We already have the Bill of rights for those examples you mentioned. Too bad some of it is ignored, attacked and overlooked.

            The only reason were even arguing this is because SCOTUS joined the 14A to “right to sodomy” in their Lawrence vs. Texas back in 2003.

        • gizmo23

          Read a law book

          • B1jetmech

            WE use to call it marriage.

            God created marriage just as he created the rainbow.

          • gizmo23

            The state doesn’t care what God did.
            You can be atheist, not love your spouse, not even live with them, the state won’t care

          • B1jetmech

            Who is the “state”?

            It’s WE the People.

            We are NOT subjects of the state.

  • acontraryview

    They must have a lot of free time on their hands if they are able to pass a resolution that has as its sole purpose to pander to a segment of the voters. Good for them!

    • B1jetmech

      That certain segment of voters were the majorities that voted on legislation in their state only to be taken away from them through judicial tyranny because liberals cannot accept election outcomes.

      • Cady555

        People do not have a right to pass discriminatory laws.

        The courts have a responsibility to protect minorities from thr tyranny of the majority.

        A person is free to think “those” people are yucky. They are not free to cause our secular government to refuse to recognize some families because someone else thnks they are yucky.

        • B1jetmech

          People have every right to pass a discriminatory law because society doesn’t want a plethora of social engineering changes ram down their throats from the tyranny of the minority or should I say an Oligarch?

          BTW, our government is not “secular” and it’s not “religious”.

          I do have a right to think some gender bender man wants to use the girls locker room because I have kids, so yeah, I do find it yucky when someone wants to live out heir mental illness.

          The only cure for the mental illness is Christ.

          • Quantz

            He certainly is the CAUSE of a lot of it. Well, not him directly, but people thinking they are speaking in his name.

          • B1jetmech

            What for people to their lives in order?

          • Quantz

            Whose order? Yours?

          • B1jetmech

            No, only liberals since they tell the rest of us how to live our lives.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Ha!!!!!

            You want to tell people they can’t have a kind of marriage you don’t approve of, and you’re complaining about other people telling you how to live your life??

          • B1jetmech

            No, it’s not letting those people define to the rest of us what marriage is.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            So, in other words, you’re fine with telling other people how they can live their life…..

            Anyway, I still don’t see how extending the right to marry to another group of people changes anything about anyone else’s marriage.

          • B1jetmech

            For us normal people who like the many generations before, don’t want a small extreme minority redefining what marriage is.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            For one thing, society has redefined marriage many times over the years, hasn’t it? Marriage isn’t the same thing today that it was 1,000 years ago, or 200 or 100 or even 10 years ago. And actually it’s not just the “extreme minority” that is in favor of same sex marriage. Look at some recent opinion polls on the issue some time. All of the ones I’ve been seeing say its about 60% for SSM, or at least somewhere in the 50’s. (Which would mean the Supreme Court’s decision actually WAS representative of public opinion!)

          • B1jetmech

            Marriage since Adam has been between a man and a woman. Now until recently in the last 2 decades, it’s being redefined to mean anything.

            So, it’s open season on redefinition because we started with the first domino. Marriage is between a man and woman, that’s how God designed it and it doesn’t work for any other way for a stable family.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Aha, the classic (completely invalid and illogical) “slippery slope” argument…

          • B1jetmech

            Oh, that never happens…(slippery slopes).

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Let me guess, it will lead to what, polygamy? I’m OK with that. Nothing that I’d be interested in, but whatever….

          • B1jetmech

            Yeah whatever…just let the dice fall where they go.

            Liberals assure us all the time negative consequences never come about from bad decisions.

          • Bob Johnson

            So, did your parents arrange your marriage?

          • B1jetmech

            Why? Were talking about Marriage between a man and woman.

          • Bob Johnson

            Traditional marriages are not for love but to increase the bonds between families. Your parents are to arrange a marriage that will strength their position in the community. Today arrange marriages are still the norm in much of the world.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            That totally didn’t answer my question.

          • B1jetmech

            You asked a question?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Yeah, how does one group of people now being able to legally get married change anything about anyone else’s marriage?

          • B1jetmech

            Because what one group of people want to do is not the same as a man and woman. Call it a civil union but it will never be marriage.

          • Carcosa

            the rest of us support gay marriage , you’re the minority

          • B1jetmech

            Then why use courts to get your way verses elections?

          • Carcosa

            because the majority does not get to decide the right of a minority, that’s why integration was decided by the courts

          • B1jetmech

            “majority does not get to decide the right of a minority”

            That is just a fortune cookie phrase. Obviously, the system doesn’t work that because the founding fathers and the framers set it up as so.

            “integration was decided by the courts”

            If you want to talk integration/segregation then we can…starting with the democrat party.

          • Carcosa

            you mean conservatives, conservatives opposed integration

          • B1jetmech

            Was Woodrow Wilson conservative? He re-segregated the military.

          • Carcosa

            yes. his polices and action are in line with conservative ideology

          • B1jetmech

            Conservatives(Christians) were responsible for the abolitionists movement of slavery in the south in pre-civil war days. They ran the underground rail road.

          • Carcosa

            progressives were reasonable for the abolitionist movement and the civil rights , conservationism is about maintain the status quo

          • B1jetmech

            Progressivism hasn’t spread to the united States yet since Karl Marx’s Communist manifesto was just circulating in Europe.

            As you just overlooked, The church in the South handled the underground railroad.

          • Carcosa

            progressives have always existed in one form or another

          • B1jetmech

            That explains 150 million people were murdered in the 20th century by progressives like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot.

          • Carcosa

            no of those were progressives, do you even know what that word means

          • Carcosa

            the fodunders did set it up that way

          • B1jetmech

            How so?

          • Carcosa

            read the Constitution, read the court cases, them majority does not decide the rights of a minority.

          • B1jetmech

            That is a new phrase invented by the liberals. Try again.

          • Carcosa

            no it’s not, just because you’ve never heard it before doesn’t mean it’s new , it just means you’re ignorant

          • B1jetmech

            Just curious..is it your turn to come on Christian websites and tell us how wrong we’re are?

          • Carcosa

            just admit you’re wrong and leave

          • B1jetmech

            I’m not the troll here…this is a Christian website.

          • Carcosa

            just admit you’re wrong and leave

          • B1jetmech

            I’m going nowhere.

          • Carcosa

            robert dear is a good example of what happens when no one provides you idiot with a voice of reason

          • B1jetmech

            What are you taking about?????

          • Carcosa

            an example of what happens when Christians immerse themselves in lies

          • B1jetmech

            It’s not lies, it’s history. Your side will never be as compassionate because you waste time going on Christian websites and badgering them.

          • Carcosa

            just admit you’re wrong and leave

          • Carcosa

            majority does not get to decide the right of a minority. that’s the way it needs to be

          • B1jetmech

            It’s not that way…especially when the supreme court misuse a civil war amendment to justify homosexual marriage.

          • Quantz

            Yes, we tell women what they can and cannot do with their bodies. We tell homosexuals who they can and can’t fall in love with. Oh, sorry, no, that’s conservatives.

          • B1jetmech

            If a woman doesn’t a want a baby then give it up for adoption. Why murder the helpless kid? Good think your mama was pro life.

            Homosexuals fall in love all the time, that’s why unfortunately, they have the highest STD disease rate of any group.

          • Quantz

            Being homosexual in itself isn’t a cause of STDs, those are caused by unprotected sex. Which can, and does, happen to straight people as well. So even if your stats are correct (which I doubt), they are irrelevant.

            And the word “murder” isn’t applicable until after it’s emerged as a human being. If my mother had terminated her pregnancy with me I never would have known the difference.

          • B1jetmech

            Well you can makes all the excuses you want to white wash homosexuality, but the fact is, HIV and STD’s are the most rampant in homosexuals.

            This is another reason I can’t be a liberal is because I cannot “dehumanize” people like you can.

            You know killing the unborn just because some supposed law says they are just a “blob” of tissue even though they inches from being outside of the world, that is what justified in the slaughtering.

            It’s amazing how you have all this emotion for homosexuality but not for the unborn…the most innocent among us.

          • Quantz

            And the simple fact is that a monogamous homosexual couple is in absolutely no danger of getting HIV or any other STD. So your anti-gay rant fails again.

            I am not pro-abortion. I believe every situation is unique and every woman has the right to make the decision based on her situation. Anyone else does not. Certainly not the church.

          • B1jetmech

            If they are truly monogamous, then why high infection rates among homosexuals?

            Yeah, I’m sure there are a few that are living monogamous, obviously, far few…

            “Certainly not the church”

            Since government is such a crappy job, then who? Did you know the church led the anti slavery movement in the south? The undergorund railroad were operated by churches?

            But, you would just hate to give credit where credits due.

          • gizmo23

            Those uppity black folk just ruined it for good decent white folks with all this civil rights stuff

          • B1jetmech

            What does skin color have to do with this?

          • gizmo23

            I don’t know. You brought up anti discrimmination law

      • Gott Mit Uns!

        We are not governed by mob rule. The reason we have a judiciary is to prevent the sort of tyranny we saw take place after the unconstitutional voting by the majority. It is inappropriate to vote on the civil rights of minorities.

        In 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the remaining state bans against interracial opposite-sex marriage. At that time, if such marriages had been voted on, 72% of American adults would have voted to keep the bans in place. Further, at that time, 48% of American adults favored criminal punishments for interracial opposite-sex couples who married.

        • B1jetmech

          Why is it that liberals have to hijack the torment of the blacks in order to justify their victim hood of homosexuals?

          So since you think people are too stupid to govern them selves and make decisions for their own lives, you think some unelected judge decide for the rest of us?

          Just because you lose an election by “will of the people” doesn’t mean mob rule. The people created the states, the states created the federal government, the feds don’t lord over us, especially when it comes to deciding social issues.

          • Gott Mit Uns!

            Why is it that American fundamentalist Christians have to hijack the word “persecution” when a wedding cake baker is simply asked to bake a wedding cake, not have his head sawed off?

            When it comes to discrimination, blacks do not possess a monopoly.

          • B1jetmech

            Are you in competition for who has it the worse?

            If a homosexual business owner doesn’t want to serve me then that is his right. Know why I believe that? Because of property rights. It’s their property not mine to tell them what they have to do with it.

            “When it comes to discrimination, blacks do not possess a monopoly.”

            Right, because the majority of hate crimes taking place in this country are towards jews.

          • Gott Mit Uns!

            No one needs to tell a baker of wedding cakes what to do with his property. Everyone already knows the baker of wedding cakes bakes wedding cakes.

            Wrong, the majority of hate crimes taking place in this country are towards members of the gay community.

          • B1jetmech

            Your so called hate crimes against gays are dwarfed by racial so you can’t claim having the worst in victim status.

      • acontraryview

        So you are not a fan of our constitution protecting the rights of the minority from the whims of the majority? Rather than a Constitutional Republic, you would prefer that the US were a pure Democracy where majority rule was the only determination of the rights of citizens and thus subject to change based on nothing more than a vote of the people?

        • B1jetmech

          When the minority gets to dictate to the rest of us that you WILL accept the redefinition of marriage or else, then yes I’m against it.

          So by now, I thought you would understand that this is a state issue apparently you still think I’m all for pure democracy.

          • acontraryview

            You are not required to accept anything. You are free to accept or not accept whatever you care to. There are many people who do not accept that people of different races are allowed to marry. Something being legal doesn’t require that you “accept” it. So, no, there is no “dictate” that you accept something. Clearly, Russ, you do not accept that marriage is between two people of the same gender, therefore completely nullifying your contention that people are dictated to accept it.

            I’ll ask again:

            So you are not a fan of our constitution protecting the rights of the minority from the whims of the majority? Rather than a Constitutional Republic, you would prefer that the US were a pure Democracy where majority rule was the only determination of the rights of citizens and thus subject to change based on nothing more than a vote of the people?

          • B1jetmech

            You keep injecting race into this which is tiresome. Your side can’t walk without the tormenting of blacks as a crutch.

            Who is Russ?

            If something is legal, how did it become legal?

            “So you are not a fan of our constitution protecting the rights of the minority from the whims of the majority?”

            Clearly, you are claiming that I don’t respect the Constitution because I don’t agree with your position. Since I said over and over again, the easy definitions and protocols that make the Constitution function, it goes over your head because you are a single issue voter when it comes to one thing…homosexual marriage and nothing else.

            “Rather than a Constitutional Republic, you would prefer that the US were a pure Democracy where majority rule was the only determination of the rights of citizens and thus subject to change based on nothing more than a vote of the people?”

            Actually, how about we pass laws constitutionally and quit bypassing the Constitution with courts when you don’t your way from election results.

          • acontraryview

            “You keep injecting race into this which is tiresome. ”

            No doubt, since it is clearly the same legal question and you don’t want to appear racist.

            “Your side can’t walk without the tormenting of blacks as a crutch.”

            No “crutch” – simply the same legal question.

            “Who is Russ?”

            Adorable.

            “Clearly, you are claiming that I don’t respect the Constitution because I don’t agree with your position.”

            Not at all. You are free to disagree with my position all you care to. If, however, in that disagreement, you state that it is judicial tyranny when the judiciary rules that a law is unconstitutional based merely on it being passed by majority vote, you are saying that the majority should be able to determine the rights of the minority. That position is not in keeping with the protections provided by our Constitution. Therefore, if you hold that belief, you do not respect the Constitution.

            “because you are a single issue voter when it comes to one thing…homosexual marriage and nothing else.”

            Far from it. Further, since that issue is settled, it is not a factor in voting decisions.

            “Actually, how about we pass laws constitutionally and quit bypassing the Constitution with courts when you don’t your way from election results.”

            Oh, you mean like Hobby Lobby? Contraception isn’t mentioned in the Constitution, so the requirements of the ACA that was passed by Congress shouldn’t be challenged in the courts, right?

            Or challenges to state-enacted anti-discrimination laws that are being challenged in court? Discrimination is not mentioned in the constitution so states are free to enact any law they care to about discrimination, right? And since it isn’t in the Constitution, those folks who are challenging whether those laws violate 1st Amendment protections shouldn’t be using the courts, should they? The ONLY recourse they have, according to you, is to change the laws through the legislative or voting process, correct?

            Or state laws regarding fire arms? The Constitution certainly doesn’t say anything about the types of arms that people are allowed to have…so that should be up to the states, right? They should be allowed to pass laws restricting certain types of weapons or high-capacity clips, right?

            You believe those cases should be dropped and that the courts should refuse to hear them, since they are state issues not mentioned in the Constitution, correct?

          • B1jetmech

            “No doubt, since it is clearly the same legal question and you don’t want to appear racist.”

            No it is not the same because one deal with skin color and the other with sexual behavior.

            You sound like a racist.

            “No “crutch” – simply the same legal question”

            So another words, you all don’t have much to stand on without exploiting the hardships of the blacks. What, wasn’t Stonewall riots not good enough?

            “Not at all. You are free to disagree with my position all you care to. If, however, in that disagreement, you state that it is judicial tyranny when the judiciary rules that a law is unconstitutional based merely on it being passed by majority vote, you are saying that the majority should be able to determine the rights of the minority.”

            That is not a litmus test to passing laws by popular vote. That is one of those fortune cookie phrases thrown around from your side. If your side who quit acting like sore losers when you don’t get your way and go judge shopping, the legislative process, and state sovereignty wouldn’t be the mess we’re in today.

            “That position is not in keeping with the protections provided by our Constitution. Therefore, if you hold that belief, you do not respect the Constitution.”

            Just because you disagree with the outcomes of state elections doesn’t mean it violates a costume amendment in the constitution.costume advancement? That would be disguising the 14th amendment as an amendment that actually applied to your case when it was originally written and ratified. Since it doesn’t, your side dresses it up to do so.

            “Far from it. Further, since that issue is settled, it is not a factor in voting decisions.”

            Guess the justice Scalia replacement isn’t influential in modern events either right?

            “Oh, you mean like Hobby Lobby? Contraception isn’t mentioned in the Constitution, so the requirements of the ACA that was passed by Congress shouldn’t be challenged in the courts, right?”

            Hobby Lobby wouldn’t have to go through with it if the Obamacare wasn’t rammed through without reading it right?

            Here’s another supreme court blunder…they had to rewrite Obamacare to justify their ruling that it was a tax. Since when does a court of any kind get to rewrite laws until they like it?

            The law should have been struck down and sent back to Congress for revision. Want to talk about this for hours? I’ll be happy to.

            BTW, do you like your 9 thousand a year deductibles?

            “Discrimination is not mentioned in the constitution so states are free to enact any law they care to about discrimination, right?”

            Since we have “quota’s” that businesses must meet to hire certain “groups” of people, I say we have legal discrimination, but liberals don’t complain aobut that.

            “The Constitution certainly doesn’t say anything about the types of arms that people are allowed to have…so that should be up to the states, right?”

            Right. So we go through the legal process of passing laws that prevents people from owning nuclear weapons or go through the amendment process…you see, two processes right there to pass laws, but, you all seem to ignore and go right for the judges….hay! Back door legislation and defend it as judicial review.

            “You believe those cases should be dropped and that the courts should refuse to hear them, since they are state issues not mentioned in the Constitution, correct?”

            Correct, because of the 9th and 10 amendment. Or, are we just to stupid to govern ourselves?

          • acontraryview

            “No it is not the same because one deal with skin color and the other with sexual behavior.”

            That is false. Sexual behavior is not a covered category. Sexuality is a covered category.

            “You sound like a racist.”

            How so?

            “you all don’t have much to stand on without exploiting the hardships of the blacks”

            How are the hardships of blacks being exploited?

            “That is not a litmus test to passing laws by popular vote.”

            Agreed. People are free to vote on whatever they care to. It is, however, a litmus test for determining the constitutionality of a law and one which you apparently don’t like. Based on your comments, you would prefer that we lived under an arrangement where the rights of the minority are subject to the whims of the majority.

            “If your side who quit acting like sore losers when you don’t get your way”

            You mean like you are doing?

            “Guess the justice Scalia replacement isn’t influential in modern events either right?”

            I’m sure whoever replaces Scalia will be influential in modern events. Did you have a point?

            “Hobby Lobby wouldn’t have to go through with it if the Obamacare wasn’t rammed through without reading it right?”

            That is not an answer to my question. Here, I’ll ask it again: Contraception isn’t mentioned in the Constitution, so the requirements of the ACA that was passed by Congress shouldn’t be challenged in the courts, right?”

            “BTW, do you like your 9 thousand a year deductibles?”

            I don’t have a $9,000/year deductible.

            “Since we have “quota’s” that businesses must meet to hire certain “groups” of people, I say we have legal discrimination, but liberals don’t complain aobut that.”

            Please cite the law regarding quotas that businesses are required to abide by.

            “you all seem to ignore and go right for the judges.”

            I’m not sure who “you all” is, but it is typically conservatives who challenge gun laws in court. And, according to you, they shouldn’t be doing so.

            “Correct, because of the 9th and 10 amendment. ”

            So tell me, if citizens are not allowed to challenge state laws in federal court, how would the protections provided by the 14th amendment be secured?

            Oh, I’ll be looking forward to your comments on articles regarding business owners who are challenging state anti-discrimination laws regarding sexuality as being a violation of 1st Amendment rights, which state that they should not be pursuing such actions as the federal courts have no jurisdiction over those laws. Please let me know when you have posted such comments so I can go review them.

  • gui1hermegano

    The fact that “gay marriage” would even be mentioned in a legislature shows what a wreck our culture is.

    • Carcosa

      I bet segregationist said the same thing when they saw interracial couples getting married and black kids going to school with white kids