SCOTUS Arguments on SSM Case Today

[Evang.Benincasa]

Did the founding fathers really have Sodomites in mind when they penned the constitution? Anyway, this is a non issue, the Christians in the first century didn't run around trying to prevent Rome from burning. This country is circling the drain, and they will get just want they wanted. They rejected the Truth of God, and now they will have to deal with what happens when they turn their backs on God. Let two consenting perverts get married, but don't ask me to teach that its OK.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Fionn mac Cumh

Is equal protection under the law really that vague? Gays were not getting equal protection under the law.

What protection were they lacking?

[Fionn mac Cumh]

Originally Posted by Originalist

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


You are like people who take one verse in the Bible out of context like "judge not". Are you familiar with the original intent of this amendment? It is saying that the State governments can't seize anything, execute someone, or imprison anyone without having tried them and found them guilty, and that in a court of law everyone must be treated equally. It has nothing to do with marriage.

This amendment did not even give negro men the right to vote. By your interpretation it should have. But it didn't. The 15th Amendment had to added for negro men to vote.

By your thinking this amendment should have given women the right to vote, but it didn't. The 19th amendment had to added to do that.


But hey you'd make a great SCOTUS Justice! They interpret the Constitution like you do, ignoring the original intent of its framers.

Obama's Solicitor General admitted to the SCOTUS and on talk shows very lately that tax exemption religious institutions will become an issue over gay marriage. Where have you been?

They didnt need an amendment to allow interracial marriage. You really want to go back to our bigoted past and require constitutional amendments for civil rights issues? Land of the free my rear end.

[Fionn mac Cumh]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

What protection were they lacking?

We were giving one group of people rights that another did not have.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Fionn mac Cumh

They didnt need an amendment to allow interracial marriage. You really want to go back to our bigoted past and require constitutional amendments for civil rights issues? Land of the free my rear end.

As usual you don't get it. The ruling about interracial MARRIAGE was just that, a ruling about MARRIAGE. There was no dispute that marriage required a woman and a man to be a marriage. What made inter-racial marriage laws a violation of the 14th Amendment was that they said white John can marry white Sally but black Bob cannot marry white Sally. That was a law that said what was legal for a white man to do was not legal for a black man to do. That was a clear violation of the 14th amendment.

This week's gay marriage ruling went further and changed the very definition of marriage, something that is not authorized by the 14th Amendment for the court to do.


So your typical slanderous innuendos don't hold any water, as usual.

BTW I am interacially married.

And we DO have constitutional amendments for civil rights. It's called the 14th Amendment.

I'm embarrassed for you when you make such a fool of yourself on here.

[Fionn mac Cumh]

Originally Posted by Originalist

As usual you don't get it. The ruling about interracial MARRIAGE was just that, a ruling about MARRIAGE. There was no dispute that marriage required a woman and a man to be a marriage. What made inter-racial marriage laws a violation of the 14th Amendment was that they said white John can marry white Sally but black Bob cannot marry white Sally. That was a law that said what was legal for a white man to do was not legal for a black man to do. That was a clear violation of the 14th amendment.

This week's gay marriage ruling went further and changed the very definition of marriage, something that is not authorized by the 14th Amendment for the court to do.


So your typical slanderous innuendos don't hold any water, as usual.

BTW I am interacially married.

And we DO have constitutional amendments for civil rights. It's called the 14th Amendment.

I'm embarrassed for you when you make such a fool of yourself on here.

The 14th is plain enough not to require any more amendments. Like I said, have we not evolved enough as a society, that we need have amendments for civil rights issues?

Does any law deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, or equal protection of the law? If so, its unconstitutional and should be changed. its not that hard.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Fionn mac Cumh

The 14th is plain enough not to require any more amendments. Like I said, have we not evolved enough as a society, that we need have amendments for civil rights issues?

Does any law deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, or equal protection of the law? If so, its unconstitutional and should be changed. its not that hard.

Again, you do not even know the context of the 14th Amendment's mentioning of life, liberty and property.

Keeping the only definition of marriage in a law is not a violation of a civil right.

By your definition laws prohibiting public nudity are a violation of the 14th Amendment.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Originalist

Again, you do not even know the context of the 14th Amendment's mentioning of life, liberty and property.

Keeping the only definition of marriage in a law is not a violation of a civil right.

By your definition laws prohibiting public nudity are a violation of the 14th Amendment.

As long as "marriage" is a "civil institution" it is in the realm of "civil" rights. That is why "civil marriage" is governed by "civil marriage statutes". Marriage wouldn't be a "civil right" if it had remained a private contract between individuals and families as it was for many centuries.

[good samaritan]

I believe that homosexuals have the right to share what is their's. Dealing with an inheritance, filing taxes jointly, and things similar. The definition of marriage is not befitting to these unions. I certainly don't think that homosexuals should have rights to adopt children and bring them into such a environment. If homosexuals could not have power of eternity with their partner or something the like I understand that some provisions could be made that they would not be legally discriminated against. The idea of forcing states to acknowledge their unions as a marriage is to redefine something that wasn't theirs to define in the first place.