Perfect example of why I loathe these "people"

[2in1evtime]

They could at least have the balls to admit in public what they actually want, believe or feel. These evil ***** refuse to answer a very, very simple question because the truth is an evil reality. Instead, they try to dance around the question, shift blame, attack the person asking the questions and continue deceiving people around them.

These ***** believe that that murdering an infant as it is being born otherwise healthy out of convenience is acceptable. The fact that this is even being discussed in our highest levels of our government is vile. If you cannot answer a simple question with a simple answer and instead have to flap your gums like these ***** you're nothing but a liar and everyone knows it.

Psychological evaluations need to be started with these kinds of people first??????? i say yes!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Ingomike]

Psychological evaluations need to be started with these kinds of people first??????? i say yes!!!!!!!!!!

Maybe a “red flag“ eval for anti constitutional red commies…

 

[eric001]

Maybe a “red flag“ eval for anti constitutional red commies…

Oooooooooohhhhhhh!! Talk about a house cleaning for gubmint! If this became reality, I don't think hardly any Dems could pass it... Come to think of it, a lot of R's couldn't pass it either.

On the other hand, that's not exactly a downside--just think of how nice it would be to de-communize our government.

 

[chipbennett]

Part of the problem was and is that the politicians used a religious standard to determine government benefits rather than a government standard. Marriage should have been left to religion and the government issued civil union certificates for determination of benefits. In their defense who would have thought 60-100 years ago our society would be here?

Exactly. Marriage is a religious institution, into which the government should have no involvement whatsoever, under first-amendment protections.

I favor civil unions recognized by the State, however the State wants to define them. Leave marriage to religion.

 

[HoughMade]

Exactly. Marriage is a religious institution, into which the government should have no involvement whatsoever, under first-amendment protections.

I favor civil unions recognized by the State, however the State wants to define them. Leave marriage to religion.

I agree with this position. Marriage becoming a legal issue was a mistake.

...nevertheless, here we are.

Was defining marriage specifically granted to the federal government by the Constitution? I'm pretty sure it wasn't, but have been wrong before. Assuming it wasn't, the fed.gov should stay the hell out of it entirely, as that is a clear overreach into states' authority and not theirs.

And I am pretty sure the exact same statement could legitimately be made about most of what Congress does/tries to do.

The federal government only gets to do what the Constitution says it can do. Marriage regulation (definition or otherwise) is nowhere in the Constitution, meaning it is left to the states, not that the state can do whatever it wants. For instance, the original intent of the 14th Amendment was to give full rights of citizenship to persons of all races and specifically states: "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."

In Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court found that the state of Virginia was violating the 14th Amendment by outlawing interracial marriage. However, remember the context of the 14th Amendment- racial equality. The 14th Amendment was explicitly enacted to provide for racial equality under the law. Now, this provision is being used to try to limit states as to other issues, well beyond anything contemplated by those who passed and ratified the 14th Amendment. I believe in "original intent" as the correct means of Constitutional interpretation. Therefore, if you want the 14th Amendment to apply to things that were never contemplated when it was ratified, you have to use the amendment process.

 

[eric001]

I agree with this position. Marriage becoming a legal issue was a mistake.

...nevertheless, here we are.

The federal government only gets to do what the Constitution says it can do. Marriage regulation (definition or otherwise) is nowhere in the Constitution, meaning it is left to the states, not that the state can do whatever it wants. For instance, the original intent of the 14th Amendment was to give full rights of citizenship to persons of all races and specifically states: "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."

In Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court found that the state of Virginia was violating the 14th Amendment by outlawing interracial marriage. However, remember the context of the 14th Amendment- racial equality. The 14th Amendment was explicitly enacted to provide for racial equality under the law. Now, this provision is being used to try to limit states as to other issues, well beyond anything contemplated by those who passed and ratified the 14th Amendment. I believe in "original intent" as the correct means of Constitutional interpretation. Therefore, if you want the 14th Amendment to apply to things that were never contemplated when it was ratified, you have to use the amendment process.

Hah! I just KNEW someone with way more knowledge than I will ever have would chime in. Thank you for that very well put together clarification HM.

And I'm positive you're absolutely right with this, "The federal government only gets to do what the Constitution says it can do." as far as legality is concerned.

What aggravates me on a regular basis is that the federal government, in reality, gets to do everything it can get away with doing irregardless of Constitutional legality.

 

[phylodog]

What aggravates me on a regular basis is that the federal government, in reality, gets to do everything it can get away with doing irregardless of Constitutional legality.

The government does not do whatever it wants. The people running the government are the ones doing whatever they want. They get into office, sell our best interests to the highest bidder and walk away multi millionaires regardless of their net worth when they took office. There are no consequences since they can just blend in with the rest of the “government”. Been going on for decades.

We could have 250 million able bodied American citizens join forces to protest something and 99% of those in DC would not care, would fee no obligation to listen or entertain what the people want. None of them care. All of them believe they were sent there to make our decisions for us rather than to represent our interests.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Exactly. Marriage is a religious institution, into which the government should have no involvement whatsoever, under first-amendment protections.

Even more basic than that -- If we would have limited the feds to their original scope the need for them to ever need to define a marriage would probably have never happened.

 

[chipbennett]

Even more basic than that -- If we would have limited the feds to their original scope the need for them to ever need to define a marriage would probably have never happened.

The first time the feds got involved was DOMA, IIRC? And the major fed involvement was Obergefell?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

The first time the feds got involved was DOMA, IIRC? And the major fed involvement was Obergefell?

Oh I'm not sure when they first got involved but I'm thinking it had to be at least as early as the rise of social security, etc., when they had to define who was entitled to benefits and whatnot.

 

[two70]

A few years ago, I would have been in lock step agreement with you. Not so much anymore. I'm not sure anymore that "the right" really understands what means to follow the Constitution, what to be a conservative means. I'm of the opinion a great many of them are about 10 years behind where the leftists of today are...and following them over the hill.

You're probably not wrong on your 10 years behind theory. However, failure to perfectly follow the Constitution does not equal clear and purposeful disregard of the Constitution.

 

[two70]

Psychological evaluations need to be started with these kinds of people first??????? i say yes!!!!!!!!!!

The field of Psychology is largely populated by similarly minded people.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

You're probably not wrong on your 10 years behind theory. However, failure to perfectly follow the Constitution does not equal clear and purposeful disregard of the Constitution.

Undoubtedly. Up until a few minutes ago, most of the liberalist democrats would look you in the eye and tell you they respect the Constitution and insist their legislation is "Constitutional".

 

[two70]

Undoubtedly. Up until a few minutes ago, most of the liberalist democrats would look you in the eye and tell you they respect the Constitution and insist their legislation is "Constitutional".

Sure, and some of them probably even believe it in their own twisted way, at least when convenient. Their actions have long betrayed their words though.

 

[phylodog]

I love to hear the liars being called on it, on the record.

 

[Twangbanger]

Christian Conservatives were just peachy with the Federal Government defining who could marry whom, for the century-plus period of time when .Gov's definition agreed with theirs.

We didn't start hearing this faux-libertarian line of thought until Tha Feds changed their position.

 

[KLB]

I agree with this position. Marriage becoming a legal issue was a mistake.

...nevertheless, here we are.

The federal government only gets to do what the Constitution says it can do. Marriage regulation (definition or otherwise) is nowhere in the Constitution, meaning it is left to the states, not that the state can do whatever it wants. For instance, the original intent of the 14th Amendment was to give full rights of citizenship to persons of all races and specifically states: "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."

In Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court found that the state of Virginia was violating the 14th Amendment by outlawing interracial marriage. However, remember the context of the 14th Amendment- racial equality. The 14th Amendment was explicitly enacted to provide for racial equality under the law. Now, this provision is being used to try to limit states as to other issues, well beyond anything contemplated by those who passed and ratified the 14th Amendment. I believe in "original intent" as the correct means of Constitutional interpretation. Therefore, if you want the 14th Amendment to apply to things that were never contemplated when it was ratified, you have to use the amendment process.

The only thing I would ask is, if they intended it only to be used for racial equality, why didn't they write that into the Amendment?