A very serious question for libs

[WVPATX]

Everyone knows the 14th amendment did not contemplate or would ever have endorsed gay marriage. The Constitutional remedy is a state law. Yet, 5 libs "found" this right in the 14th amendment. We must acknowledge that the framers of the 14th amendment would have never endorsed this amendment if it meant a redefinition of marriage.

What can possibly justify five unelected justices creating rights which the framers would have specifically prohibited? Doesn't the Constitution spell out remedies for a changing society? Why do libs constantly ignore the constitution and create "rights" outside of the intent of the framers?

We have no democracy when unelected judges create new law. It's horrific that libs don't recognize the damage they are inflicting on our Republic. This will not end well.

 

[mule_eer]

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.

That's straight out of section 1 of the amendment. I think it's easy to see how a law explicitly prohibiting the marriage of 2 adults could be seen to run afoul of this section of the amendment.

 

[WVPATX]

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.

That's straight out of section 1 of the amendment. I think it's easy to see how a law explicitly prohibiting the marriage of 2 adults could be seen to run afoul of this section of the amendment.

Again, the Founders would have never intended that clause be used for this purpose. Their sole remedy is through legislation by the people, not through the courts. Using the Equal Protection argument opens up all kinds of marriages against the wishes of the State (eg Polygamy, incestual marriages, etc.)

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

Again, the Founders would have never intended that clause be used for this purpose. Their sole remedy is through legislation by the people, not through the courts. Using the Equal Protection argument opens up all kinds of marriages against the wishes of the State (eg Polygamy, incestual marriages, etc.)

How do you know what the founders thoughts about gay rights were? Further, if what you say were true, let's pretend that it is for a second, if it were true then they were wrong.

 

[Mntneer]

The 14th amendment wasn't written by the founders. It was ratified in 1868.

If the majority of the states allow polygamy, then polygamy it is.

 

[Op2]

Everyone knows the 14th amendment did not contemplate or would ever have endorsed gay marriage. The Constitutional remedy is a state law. Yet, 5 libs "found" this right in the 14th amendment. We must acknowledge that the framers of the 14th amendment would have never endorsed this amendment if it meant a redefinition of marriage.

What can possibly justify five unelected justices creating rights which the framers would have specifically prohibited? Doesn't the Constitution spell out remedies for a changing society? Why do libs constantly ignore the constitution and create "rights" outside of the intent of the framers?

We have no democracy when unelected judges create new law. It's horrific that libs don't recognize the damage they are inflicting on our Republic. This will not end well.

Why don't you get upset with the really severe Constitution violations, like when a part of the country tries to break away a la the Confederates in 1861? You don't think that's a big deal and yet you get upset about something like gay marriage, which is clearly going to be everywhere before too long regardless of what the SCOTUS says.

 

[WVPATX]

How do you know what the founders thoughts about gay rights were? Further, if what you say were true, let's pretend that it is for a second, if it were true then they were wrong.

You can't possibly believe the ratifiers of the 14th amendment would support gay marriage. The remedy is legislation not new law created by the court.

 

[WVPATX]

Why don't you get upset with the really severe Constitution violations, like when a part of the country tries to break away a la the Confederates in 1861? You don't think that's a big deal and yet you get upset about something like gay marriage, which is clearly going to be everywhere before too long regardless of what the SCOTUS says.

I was raised in WV and considered myself a Yankee. The Civil War was abhorrent but I'm smart enough to give those that feel differently about the flag respeful deference. Libs used to believe in this philosophy as well.

 

[WVPATX]

The 14th amendment wasn't written by the founders. It was ratified in 1868.

If the majority of the states allow polygamy, then polygamy it is.

Exactly, you've made my point. The states should decide new law not unelected judges.

 

[Op2]

I was raised in WV and considered myself a Yankee. The Civil War was abhorrent but I'm smart enough to give those that feel differently about the flag respeful deference. Libs used to believe in this philosophy as well.

You give respectful deference to people that revere the flag of the people that tried to split the country in two but don't give respectful deference to anyone that disagrees with you on any political issue.

 

[WVPATX]

You give respectful deference to people that revere the flag of the people that tried to split the country in two but don't give respectful deference to anyone that disagrees with you on any political issue.

Gimme a break. This forum is for DEBATE. You assume that people like the flag because it represents secession? Wrong once again my friend.

But going back to my original point, do you support SCOTUS creating new law?

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

You can't possibly believe the ratifiers of the 14th amendment would support gay marriage. The remedy is legislation not new law created by the court.

So, I'll clear up my thoughts. I believe the framers believed every man and woman were created equally under the eyes of God and to discriminate whether through state's individual rights or federally is wrong. I fully support gay marriage and equality.

With that said, I also fully support a church's right not to sanction gay marriage or be forced to conduct them. I was raised catholic and my wife was raised baptist. I wanted to marry in a Catholic Church of which would have required her to convert and receive the sacraments. She didn't want to, the church wouldn't budge, so we had an outdoor wedding done by a family friend who was a baptist preacher. Didn't bother me a bit and I still respect the church's right to refuse.

 

[WVPATX]

So, I'll clear up my thoughts. I believe the framers believed every man and woman were created equally under the eyes of God and to discriminate whether through state's individual rights or federally is wrong. I fully support gay marriage and equality.

With that said, I also fully support a church's right not to sanction gay marriage or be forced to conduct them. I was raised catholic and my wife was raised baptist. I wanted to marry in a Catholic Church of which would have required her to convert and receive the sacraments. She didn't want to, the church wouldn't budge, so we had an outdoor wedding done by a family friend who was a baptist preacher. Didn't bother me a bit and I still respect the church's right to refuse.

Many conservatives support gay marriage but believe it should be decided by the people. Courts should not be creating laws. Clearly those who write the 14th amendment wouldn't have supported gay marriage so the people should decide. Original intent is critical or courts will be in the business that belongs to legislatures.

 

[WVUBRU]

So, I'll clear up my thoughts. I believe the framers believed every man and woman were created equally under the eyes of God and to discriminate whether through state's individual rights or federally is wrong. I fully support gay marriage and equality.

With that said, I also fully support a church's right not to sanction gay marriage or be forced to conduct them. I was raised catholic and my wife was raised baptist. I wanted to marry in a Catholic Church of which would have required her to convert and receive the sacraments. She didn't want to, the church wouldn't budge, so we had an outdoor wedding done by a family friend who was a baptist preacher. Didn't bother me a bit and I still respect the church's right to refuse.

Perfectly expressed.

 

[Mntneer]

Exactly, you've made my point. The states should decide new law not unelected judges.

They can, as long as they don't interfere with our rights.

 

[MountaineerWV]

Everyone knows the 14th amendment did not contemplate or would ever have endorsed gay marriage. The Constitutional remedy is a state law. Yet, 5 libs "found" this right in the 14th amendment. We must acknowledge that the framers of the 14th amendment would have never endorsed this amendment if it meant a redefinition of marriage.

What can possibly justify five unelected justices creating rights which the framers would have specifically prohibited? Doesn't the Constitution spell out remedies for a changing society? Why do libs constantly ignore the constitution and create "rights" outside of the intent of the framers?

We have no democracy when unelected judges create new law. It's horrific that libs don't recognize the damage they are inflicting on our Republic. This will not end well.

The lovely thing about our Founding Fathers, and the Radical Republicans of Congress during the Civil War, were that they were indeed "RADICAL" thinkers. They went against the "normal" way of thinking that the majority of Americans had at the times.

 

[BigLickMountee]

So, I'll clear up my thoughts. I believe the framers believed every man and woman were created equally under the eyes of God and to discriminate whether through state's individual rights or federally is wrong. I fully support gay marriage and equality.

With that said, I also fully support a church's right not to sanction gay marriage or be forced to conduct them. I was raised catholic and my wife was raised baptist. I wanted to marry in a Catholic Church of which would have required her to convert and receive the sacraments. She didn't want to, the church wouldn't budge, so we had an outdoor wedding done by a family friend who was a baptist preacher. Didn't bother me a bit and I still respect the church's right to refuse.

My wife too was baptist and me a catholic convert. We had a catholic wedding. She just didn't take the Eucharist. 20 years later she converted. One of the best days of my life.

 

[Popeer]

We have no democracy when unelected judges create new law. It's horrific that libs don't recognize the damage they are inflicting on our Republic. This will not end well.

How did you feel about the Citizens United decision? Seems to me that a lot of people love it when the Supreme Court "creates new law" if they agree with the decision, and go off the rails about judicial activism when they don't. My Christian teaching (and don't go waving the Old Testament at me; And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament - Hebrews 9:15) says that marriage is between people of the opposite sex. But under the Constitution the court could hardly have ruled any other way - either the 14th Amendment applies to equal protection of all the laws, or it's meaningless on its face. And nowhere in the majority opinion did I read anything requiring any church to change its doctrine.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

How did you feel about the Citizens United decision? Seems to me that a lot of people love it when the Supreme Court "creates new law" if they agree with the decision, and go off the rails about judicial activism when they don't. My Christian teaching (and don't go waving the Old Testament at me; And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament - Hebrews 9:15) says that marriage is between people of the opposite sex. But under the Constitution the court could hardly have ruled any other way - either the 14th Amendment applies to equal protection of all the laws, or it's meaningless on its face. And nowhere in the majority opinion did I read anything requiring any church to change its doctrine.

They just opened the kimono up for CCW to be 100% reciprocity.

 

[Popeer]

They just opened the kimono up for CCW to be 100% reciprocity.

Quite possibly, although that will require a separate decision. And if it comes to that, I doubt that will mean the end of civilization as we know it.

 

[Mntneer]

They just opened the kimono up for CCW to be 100% reciprocity.

They absolutely did. The days of being fearful about driving through Maryland may come to an end.

 

[countryroads89]

Everyone knows the 14th amendment did not contemplate or would ever have endorsed gay marriage. ... We must acknowledge that the framers of the 14th amendment would have never endorsed this amendment if it meant a redefinition of marriage.

What can possibly justify five unelected justices creating rights which the framers would have specifically prohibited? Doesn't the Constitution spell out remedies for a changing society? Why do libs constantly ignore the constitution and create "rights" outside of the intent of the framers?

We have no democracy when unelected judges create new law. It's horrific that libs don't recognize the damage they are inflicting on our Republic. This will not end well.

You're precious. You complain about "unelected judges" but I'm sure you're one of the people who voted for a conservative president when they knew there would be a supreme court justice appointment in the president's term. You just complain about "unelected judges" when you don't like the outcome.

You and everyone else know damn well the supreme court judges didn't create law, they interpreted it and rendered a ruling. You accusing libs of ignoring the constitution is hilarious and hypocritical.

Thanks for sharing your insight as to what the framers of our constitution were thinking and how they felt. I could do the same exact thing and say they never intended for anyone to be denied the right to marry based on sexual orientation and the benefits that come with marriage, such as benefits from a family health insurance plan, life insurance benefits, survivorship benefits, tax filing status, etc. This is exactly why the idiots that say this is not a federal issue are just exactly that, idiots. This has federal and state implications.

Please continue to post; it is very entertaining. Some of you poor posters are too stupid to realize how stupid you look. I love it.

 

[WVPATX]

You're precious. You complain about "unelected judges" but I'm sure you're one of the people who voted for a conservative president when they knew there would be a supreme court justice appointment in the president's term. You just complain about "unelected judges" when you don't like the outcome.

You and everyone else know damn well the supreme court judges didn't create law, they interpreted it and rendered a ruling. You accusing libs of ignoring the constitution is hilarious and hypocritical.

Thanks for sharing your insight as to what the framers of our constitution were thinking and how they felt. I could do the same exact thing and say they never intended for anyone to be denied the right to marry based on sexual orientation and the benefits that come with marriage, such as benefits from a family health insurance plan, life insurance benefits, survivorship benefits, tax filing status, etc. This is exactly why the idiots that say this is not a federal issue are just exactly that, idiots. This has federal and state implications.

Please continue to post; it is very entertaining. Some of you poor posters are too stupid to realize how stupid you look. I love it.

Your other willfully ignorant or simply ignorant. Please provide any evidence whatsoever that the framers would have permitted gay marriage. There is none but I can provide plenty of evidence that they were mostly Christian and would have been very much against one man marrying another man.

The Supreme Court created a new law. To declare otherwise it's simply ignorance. That's why the framers designed a system of representatives much closer to people to create law.

 

[Mntneer]

Your other willfully ignorant or simply ignorant. Please provide any evidence whatsoever that the framers would have permitted gay marriage. There is none but I can provide plenty of evidence that they were mostly Christian and would have been very much against one man marrying another man.

The Supreme Court created a new law. To declare otherwise it's simply ignorance. That's why the framers designed a system of representatives much closer to people to create law.

Telling states that they can't discriminate against individuals is not creating new law. States themselves allow gay marriage.

 

[WVPATX]

Telling states that they can't discriminate against individuals is not creating new law. States themselves allow gay marriage.

Such BS. Telling states they must accept gay marriage is creating new law. With this new law, I cannot see how states cannot permit any kind of marriage.

 

[Keyser76]

Who cares anymore, like every state wouldn't eventually allow it when the tide of public opinion started costing them tourist and convention revenue. Ya'll are just pissing in the wind at this point. Gonna be worse than 2012 if you still think Mitt wasn't far enough to the right.

 

[countryroads89]

Such BS. Telling states they must accept gay marriage is creating new law. With this new law, I cannot see how states cannot permit any kind of marriage.

Prior to the SCOTUS ruling last week, 35 states, that's 70 per cent to you and I, already allowed gay marriage. DOH!

Is telling states they can't discriminate based on color creating new law?

 

[Mntneer]

Such BS. Telling states they must accept gay marriage is creating new law. With this new law, I cannot see how states cannot permit any kind of marriage.

They told states they must recognize those marriages that occurred in other states. That's not creating law.

 

[WVPATX]

Prior to the SCOTUS ruling last week, 35 states, that's 70 per cent to you and I, already allowed gay marriage. DOH!

Is telling states they can't discriminate based on color creating new law?

Blatant misrepresentation. The vast majority of those states had it imposed by the courts , not through elections. I have no problem with gay marriage if the voters enact it. The voters can then stay in control of marriages and continue to exluded marriages like polygamy. But when the coiurts rule as a blunt instrument, "rights" must be extended to everyone with unknow consequences.

 

[WVPATX]

They told states they must recognize those marriages that occurred in other states. That's not creating law.

You apparently don't know what you are talking about. Gay marriages are now available in all 50 states.

 

[WVPATX]

Who cares anymore, like every state wouldn't eventually allow it when the tide of public opinion started costing them tourist and convention revenue. Ya'll are just pissing in the wind at this point. Gonna be worse than 2012 if you still think Mitt wasn't far enough to the right.

Most people who believe we are a nation of laws care. Courts should not create new law. If you support gay marriage, vote for it. The people should decide.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

Most people who believe we are a nation of laws care. Courts should not create new law. If you support gay marriage, vote for it. The people should decide.

Did we have to vote for straight marriage?

 

[WVPATX]

Did we have to vote for straight marriage?

You support gay marriage, that's fine. But don't claim the court did not create new law with this ruling. It should have been left up to the people. Just as it should have with abortion.

 

[moe]

You support gay marriage, that's fine. But don't claim the court did not create new law with this ruling. It should have been left up to the people. Just as it should have with abortion.

You seem to be on the wrong side of this one.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...548332-e92a-11e4-aae1-d642717d8afa_story.html

 

[WVPATX]

You seem to be on the wrong side of this one.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...548332-e92a-11e4-aae1-d642717d8afa_story.html

VOTE on it. Don't let courts create new laws. It's very destructive.

 

[Mntneer]

You support gay marriage, that's fine. But don't claim the court did not create new law with this ruling. It should have been left up to the people. Just as it should have with abortion.

And if the people create a law that is unconstitutional. It's going to be struck down. In many states it was the "people" that voted for same sex marriage. In other cases it was courts striking down laws preventing gay marriage, finding them unconstitutional.

Why you are so upset about this ruling is amazing.

 

[moe]

VOTE on it. Don't let courts create new laws. It's very destructive.

The high court has spoken and as they say, deal with it. I hope the decision doesn't ruin your life.

 

[countryroads89]

VOTE on it. Don't let courts create new laws. It's very destructive.

Did we vote on the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

 

[WVPATX]

And if the people create a law that is unconstitutional. It's going to be struck down. In many states it was the "people" that voted for same sex marriage. In other cases it was courts striking down laws preventing gay marriage, finding them unconstitutional.

Why you are so upset about this ruling is amazing.

Like I said , vote on it. That's how this democracy and our system of government works. Giving this much power to 9 unelected judges destroys our system of checks and balances. Why you're not upset about it is amazing to me.

 

[Mntneer]

This is not a pure democracy. By your line of thought, a state could "vote on it" and pass a law allowing for something heinous like slavery and the courts would be helpless to prevent it. Absurd.