No, they are court protected only. Constitutional protections would take an amendment to the Constitution to change... sorry, you are just wrong. Admitting it is hard I know...They are, in accordance with constitutional law and precedence, which is completely valid.
Until the SCOTUS reverses their rulings (which is highly unlikely given what that takes), saying that they are constitutionally protected stands.
Marriage has been clearly spelled out as between a man and a woman in law. If you want to change the law fine but do it the constitutional way.
1 U.S. Code § 7 - Definition of “marriage” and “spouse”
Current through Pub. L. 113-86, except 113-79. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
US Code
Notes
Updates
prev | next
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.
The power the Constitution grants it also restrains. And though Congress has great authority to design laws to fit its own conception of sound national policy, it cannot deny the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.[...] the principal purpose and the necessary effect of this law are to demean those persons who are in a lawful same-sex marriage. This requires the Court to hold, as it now does, that DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. The liberty protected by the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause contains within it the prohibition against denying to any person the equal protection of the laws. [...] While the Fifth Amendment itself withdraws from Government the power to degrade or demean in the way this law does, the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment makes that Fifth Amendment right all the more specific and all the better understood and preserved.
No, they are court protected only. Constitutional protections would take an amendment to the Constitution to change... sorry, you are just wrong. Admitting it is hard I know...
In other words you have nothing.Okay... and so? See, I know I am too wordy in most of my posts, but now, since you said the obtuse without doing the work of fleshing it out, we have lost the original point... and I am just too busy to go back and look right now...so...next...
Don't look now but you can not.It is not necessarily an absolute, but if we the people want it that way, we damn well can keep it that way.
I hardly needed help but clearly you do.It is a proven method that has worked wonderfully for us for generation after generation...along with other attributes within the system, its helped take us to supremacy in world power, a good world power on the whole, and mightily impressive domestic economics...why fix something that isn't broken, as they say. That help you out any?
Because you say so?You are just flat out wrong on preclusion.
Good, enough said then.Well, because of the system we have, though not precluded, we do have less chance for tyranny here, agreed.
Not to you since it is you would would deny others their equality.Not allowing same sex marriage is in no way to be associated with a tyranny in any event.
But it that recognition exactly that is at issue here and what you want to deny because you do not approve.And you are free, in your own way, to marry whomever you want, nobody will/can stop you if the other is able and willing to give consent... just don't expect state sanction and recognition is all.
Nice intellectual and intelligent rebuttal. Just what can be expected from you.Screw your legalese crap... this is society we are talking about here, not your day at the courthouse chatting it up with attorneys and paralegals.
You missed way too many civics classes and clearly are out of touch with what the majority wants.We, the People...ever heard of US? Apparently not.
What restrictions? If there is sufficient majority, we can obtain an amendment to do pretty much anything we desire...except take away inalienable rights... you would agree wouldn't you? How does that equate with your views on the majority?
More reason not to support SSM I suppose then, poor kids. Shouldn't have happened in the first place... I blame the "parents".
Maybe you should have someone explain the Constitution to you.You are correct, the right to marry for gays is clearly spelled out in the constitution.:roll:
Not just the uneducated that is silly. There is a whole bunch of willful ignorants, homophobes and bigots.So only the uneducated rabble are against gay marriage huh. Typical elitist attitude.
They also forget that the founding father of this nation were not ignorant morons either.Absolutely. And I'll go one step further in the direction of elitism, surely further than any of our egalitarian left-liberals will go: the very life of a single educated elite is objectively more valuable than the lives of ten or a hundred West Virginian Southern Baptists.
That's elitist. I don't care. 'Elitism' is not a dirty word. Conservatives of old understood this - and supported the elite.
You clearly lack the understanding of how courts work. Can you point to a single law that was made by judges?I am against judges making law from the bench no matter if they are right or wrong, that is where we differ.
Which then makes you what?Most true conservatives know our Constitution...
We, the People...ever heard of US? Apparently not.
What restrictions? If there is sufficient majority, we can obtain an amendment to do pretty much anything we desire...except take away inalienable rights... you would agree wouldn't you? How does that equate with your views on the majority?
Got something on topic you want to discuss, perhaps... or just want to sit around and ...
BINGO, we have a winner...The Nazi's were efficient too.
You keep repeating the same ignorant tripe.Laws are supposed to be passed in congress not by judges.
Pol Pot wold be the more apt, as he too killed the ones who could read or count further than 2 and made no ethic distinctions.(A) the fact you're too uneducated to come up with a novel comparison (the Armenian genocide, perhaps?).
What right would that be?You can't pass a law against a right that is clearly written out in the constitution, gay marriage does not rise to that level.
But at least Jefferson found it to be OK for a white diode to procreate with a black woman. That is almost as good as having it written in the Constitution...Neither is the right for a black dude to marry a white woman clearly laid out in the Constitution.
>>>>
What right would that be?
Neither do you see a right to marry anyone, but that was not the question.I just don't see the right to marry a member of the same sex here.
You can't pass a law against a right that is clearly written out in the constitution, gay marriage does not rise to that level.
I just don't see the right to marry a member of the same sex here.
People of legal age should be allowed to marry whomever they want. I include polygamists, sisters who want to marry their brothers, and gay people in that.
This is an issue that shouldn't be political, just like abortion.
Is this the biggest problem in the USA today? Not at all.
Free love all around. It doesn't affect me either way.
It's amazing that many conservatives are interested in marrying their relatives and animals. I think that says a lot about conservatism.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?