The Big Gay Marriage Lie

[musiclady]

At any rate, my post was serious, as has every comment I've made on this thread, and yours was defensive and emotional in response, filled with irrelevant (and wrongheaded) ad hominems, and it amused me because it was so............... pointless.   So since you can't seem to stay on topic, I'll let you have the last word.

Yes.  I did.

[MACVSOG68]

Good argument... but then you ruin it with a non-sequitur.

Your own argument says that the power to regulate 'gay marriage' belongs to the States and the people, which is what we had.  Some States and people voted to legalize 'gay marriage' while some States and people rejected it.  Just like the Constitution says.

The SCOTUS is not 'the States or the people' and had no constitutional power to force the States or the people to accept 'gay marriage' if they didn't want it.

Except that when a 14th Amendment (or any other for that matter) challenge is made, the federal court system does come into play on it.  If SCOTUS does agree with a challenge, that a person's rights have been violated under the equal protection clause, it does indeed have the constitutional power to rule as it did in all the other decisions I mentioned above.  Some, even many may not like it, but that is the top of the appeals process.

While there have been questions about the Bill of Rights and whether states were subject to them, that has been cleared up by a number of SCOTUS decisions.  The Tenth Amendment was surely not intended to give the states a pass on the other rights amendments.

And we cannot just pick and choose.  What if a state doesn't care much for the 2d Amendment and simply ignores it?  Most of us would say that's not okay.  So when SCOTUS finds a violation of the due process or equal protection clauses, it doesn't matter what the states want.  If they're that upset, call for an Article V convention, or get Congress to pass an amendment outlawing gay marriage.

[GourmetDan]

Except that when a 14th Amendment (or any other for that matter) challenge is made, the federal court system does come into play on it.  If SCOTUS does agree with a challenge, that a person's rights have been violated under the equal protection clause, it does indeed have the constitutional power to rule as it did in all the other decisions I mentioned above.  Some, even many may not like it, but that is the top of the appeals process.

While there have been questions about the Bill of Rights and whether states were subject to them, that has been cleared up by a number of SCOTUS decisions.  The Tenth Amendment was surely not intended to give the states a pass on the other rights amendments.

And we cannot just pick and choose.  What if a state doesn't care much for the 2d Amendment and simply ignores it?  Most of us would say that's not okay.  So when SCOTUS finds a violation of the due process or equal protection clauses, it doesn't matter what the states want.  If they're that upset, call for an Article V convention, or get Congress to pass an amendment outlawing gay marriage.

Except that 'equal protection' is only defined in one direction... the destruction of society.  Any perversion that people want to participate in and that has been made 'popular' through the secular media is now an 'equal protection' issue.

The States and the people and all other constitutional rights are then defined as being subject to the SCOTUS ruling on that subject.

It's utter stupidity...

[Luis Gonzalez]

Yes.  I did.

• Who then if not the people, should determine what is right when it comes to "moral" issues among consenting adults?
• If not the people, who should determine what is morally right among consenting adults?
  
• Who will set these standards that the people shouldn't violate, and even more so, how are they to be enforced?
• I've asked you a couple of times who should set those standards and who should enforce them?
• If not "the people" as supported by the Supreme Law of the Land, who then should determine what is morally right between consenting adults?

I won't hold my breath.

[MACVSOG68]

Except that 'equal protection' is only defined in one direction... the destruction of society.  Any perversion that people want to participate in and that has been made 'popular' through the secular media is now an 'equal protection' issue.

The States and the people and all other constitutional rights are then defined as being subject to the SCOTUS ruling on that subject.

It's utter stupidity...

The equal protection and due process clause is designed to ensure that individuals receive the same protection from the laws of a state as everyone else, and not be arbitrarily deprived of life, liberty or property.  IOW it was designed to protect the minority from the majority.  I won't even argue the term "perversion", as that's a judgment call.  I will say that Lawrence v. Texas decided that since if certain sexual acts among heterosexuals were not prosecuted, neither should the same acts be among homosexuals.  Such laws are considered a violation of due process when vague and designed to deprive someone of life, liberty or property.

For the most part, conservatives generally opt for less intrusion into their lives, and should be supportive of protections against the violation of their privacy.

[GourmetDan]

The equal protection and due process clause is designed to ensure that individuals receive the same protection from the laws of a state as everyone else, and not be arbitrarily deprived of life, liberty or property.  IOW it was designed to protect the minority from the majority.  I won't even argue the term "perversion", as that's a judgment call.  I will say that Lawrence v. Texas decided that since if certain sexual acts among heterosexuals were not prosecuted, neither should the same acts be among homosexuals.  Such laws are considered a violation of due process when vague and designed to deprive someone of life, liberty or property.

Using that logic, then neither should those same acts be prosecuted among bestialists and the bestialists have an 'equal protection' issue because they 'love' animals.  And neither should those same acts be prosecuted among pedophiles and the pedophiles have an 'equal protection' issue because they 'love' little children.

For the most part, conservatives generally opt for less intrusion into their lives, and should be supportive of protections against the violation of their privacy.

Yeah, like these results from said 'protections'...

                   

[EdinVA]

Using that logic, then neither should those same acts be prosecuted among bestialists and the bestialists have an 'equal protection' issue because they 'love' animals.  And neither should those same acts be prosecuted among pedophiles and the pedophiles have an 'equal protection' issue because they 'love' little children.

                 

So, it appears to me, the debate is the letter of the law vs the intent of the law.
Lawyers get rich debating the letter of the law and the rest of us have to live with the intent of the law.

[Luis Gonzalez]

The equal protection and due process clause is designed to ensure that individuals receive the same protection from the laws of a state as everyone else, and not be arbitrarily deprived of life, liberty or property.  IOW it was designed to protect the minority from the majority.  I won't even argue the term "perversion", as that's a judgment call.  I will say that Lawrence v. Texas decided that since if certain sexual acts among heterosexuals were not prosecuted, neither should the same acts be among homosexuals.  Such laws are considered a violation of due process when vague and designed to deprive someone of life, liberty or property.

For the most part, conservatives generally opt for less intrusion into their lives, and should be supportive of protections against the violation of their privacy.

It's the constant struggle between the XIV Amendment Federal Equal Protection Clause and the X Amendment's Federalism.

In essence, the argument always seems to boil down to a State arguing that it has a Constitutionally-protected right to (in one way or another) discriminate, segregate, or treat a minority of its residents in an unequal manner than the majority based on some qualifying trait, and the Federal government arguing that the Constitution does not grant a State government (ot its people) the power (or the right) to legislate an inequity in treatment to a portion of its residents based on a qualifying trait.

To say that the Equal Protection Clause is defined (or used) only with the idea of destroying society is just ignorant.

Brown v. Board of Education - Ended segregation

Loving v. Virginia - Repealed all anti-misogyny laws

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke  - Ended the use of strict racial quotas designed to satisfy Affirmative Action laws in colleges and Universities

[GourmetDan]

So, it appears to me, the debate is the letter of the law vs the intent of the law.
Lawyers get rich debating the letter of the law and the rest of us have to live with the intent of the law.

My point is that there was no 'equal protection' issue.  Marriage to one person of the opposite sex was not denied to any group.  It was available to all.

A small segment of society wanted their 'feelings' to take precedence over the law... and they got it.  Not because there was a legal or constitutional issue but because of their 'feelings'.

Given that 'feelings' are now constitutionally-protected, you can expect every other perversion to seek constitutional protection for the 'feelings'...

[GourmetDan]

To say that the Equal Protection Clause is defined (or used) only with the idea of destroying society is just ignorant.

To deny that the equal protection clause is being used to destroy society is to be willfully blind to reality...

[EC]

4 people left arguing. All 4 have given long thought to their stances.

I'll check back in a year or so. 

[DCPatriot]

So, it appears to me, the debate is the letter of the law vs the intent of the law.
Lawyers get rich debating the letter of the law and the rest of us have to live with the intent of the law.

....as the Supreme Court does?   

[MACVSOG68]

Using that logic, then neither should those same acts be prosecuted among bestialists and the bestialists have an 'equal protection' issue because they 'love' animals.  And neither should those same acts be prosecuted among pedophiles and the pedophiles have an 'equal protection' issue because they 'love' little children.

That argument says that if anyone is protected by the 14th Amendment then everyone must regardless of any legitimate state interest in denying that protection.  And of course that's false on several levels.  I'm not aware of any SCOTUS decision since the 14th Amendment was ratified that required protection of those engaged in harming others.  It's once again the slippery slope argument that has yet to show prospect, with of course all due respect.  Every case has a stage that gives a state the opportunity to show a compelling state interest in the discrimination. 


Yeah, like these results from said 'protections'...

                   
[/quote]

So am I to interpret that you do not believe in due process, equal protection of the laws, or the privacy of individuals.  Everyone has the opportunity to file lawsuits, even those who challenge the laws from a Christian perspective, (eg: Hobby Lobby). 

[Luis Gonzalez]

....as the Supreme Court does?   

Are they wrong all the time, of just when you don't agree with them?

[DCPatriot]

Are they wrong all the time, of just when you don't agree with them?

Come on, man!   
   



When I don't agree with them, of course.

[GourmetDan]

That argument says that if anyone is protected by the 14th Amendment then everyone must regardless of any legitimate state interest in denying that protection.  And of course that's false on several levels.

Yet gays had the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex as did you and I.  The ruling was based on 'feelings' and has opened the door to any other perversion that puts 'feelings' over facts.

I'm not aware of any SCOTUS decision since the 14th Amendment was ratified that required protection of those engaged in harming others.  It's once again the slippery slope argument that has yet to show prospect, with of course all due respect.  Every case has a stage that gives a state the opportunity to show a compelling state interest in the discrimination. 

So you agree that the unborn are not human and are not 'harmed' by being killed, dismembered and sold for parts?  I'm not sure that was even considered as being on the slippery slope back in the 70's, yet here it is.

And you say that the slippery slope argument 'has yet to show prospect'...

So am I to interpret that you do not believe in due process, equal protection of the laws, or the privacy of individuals.  Everyone has the opportunity to file lawsuits, even those who challenge the laws from a Christian perspective, (eg: Hobby Lobby).

It's that slippery slope that you claim 'has yet to show prospect'...

[Luis Gonzalez]

Come on, man!   
   



When I don't agree with them, of course.

No one wins every argument (except my wife).

The SCOTUS is the designated Solomon of our most contentious issues.

Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, as Carole King would say.

Maybe our system of government in general is the worst, with the possible exception of every other system of government that's ever existed or exists today.

[DCPatriot]

No one wins every argument (except my wife).

The SCOTUS is the designated Solomon of our most contentious issues.

Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, as Carole King would say.

Maybe our system of government in general is the worst, with the possible exception of every other system of government that's ever existed or exists today.

 

 

I suppose we just have to get used to 'losing' right now.   Not happy about it. 

[MACVSOG68]

That argument says that if anyone is protected by the 14th Amendment then everyone must regardless of any legitimate state interest in denying that protection.  And of course that's false on several levels.

Yet gays had the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex as did you and I.  The ruling was based on 'feelings' and has opened the door to any other perversion that puts 'feelings' over facts.

That argument was considered specious by the court because for several years, most jurisdictions that didn't allow gay marriage nonetheless did allow various legal arrangements from living together without being arrested to full blown domestic partnerships.  By the time of the SCOTUS decision, 38 states had legalized gay marriage, and over 40 federal and district courts had struck down bans.  Additionally public opinion had turned around dramatically on the issue.  All of that led the Court to find that legitimate and compelling state interests simply didn't exist and found both the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th required a finding in favor of legal gay marriage, religious and slippery slope concerns notwithstanding.


 
I'm not aware of any SCOTUS decision since the 14th Amendment was ratified that required protection of those engaged in harming others.  It's once again the slippery slope argument that has yet to show prospect, with of course all due respect.  Every case has a stage that gives a state the opportunity to show a compelling state interest in the discrimination. 

So you agree that the unborn are not human and are not 'harmed' by being killed, dismembered and sold for parts?  I'm not sure that was even considered as being on the slippery slope back in the 70's, yet here it is.

And you say that the slippery slope argument 'has yet to show prospect'...

What you are attempting to do is to lay every perceived and real moral quandary at the feet of gay marriage.  Even the Court in Roe recognized differences during the various trimesters.  The Catholic Church didn't consider the first stage fetus as a human with a soul until the 1850s.  As for what's been on FoxNews for the past few days, I imagine that has been going on for some time, and it will turn out to hurt the liberals in that area.  I don't see a gay issue involved in fetal body part sales.  While most Americans have no issue with organ donation or stem-cell research, looking at those videos is alarming to many.


 
So am I to interpret that you do not believe in due process, equal protection of the laws, or the privacy of individuals.  Everyone has the opportunity to file lawsuits, even those who challenge the laws from a Christian perspective, (eg: Hobby Lobby).

It's that slippery slope that you claim 'has yet to show prospect'...

I think you seriously missed the point, with of course, all due respect.

[GourmetDan]

That argument was considered specious by the court because for several years, most jurisdictions that didn't allow gay marriage nonetheless did allow various legal arrangements from living together without being arrested to full blown domestic partnerships.  By the time of the SCOTUS decision, 38 states had legalized gay marriage, and over 40 federal and district courts had struck down bans.  Additionally public opinion had turned around dramatically on the issue.  All of that led the Court to find that legitimate and compelling state interests simply didn't exist and found both the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th required a finding in favor of legal gay marriage, religious and slippery slope concerns notwithstanding.

Well of course the court had to say they rejected those arguments in order to conclude as they did.  I thought that rather obvious... and meaningless.  Do you really believe that just because the Court defined-away several completely valid arguments that it means that the Court got it right?  Circular arguments are great, aren't they?

The fact that 40 courts have struck down bans simply shows that the court system is regularly used to thwart the will of the people and force States and people to accept behaviors that they don't want.

Leaving the decision to the States was the right thing to do.  Let the States and the people decide what they want but, oh no, we have to mandate it onto people who don't want it.  The media has been pushing the gay agenda for almost 50 years, recently into the schools because you have to indoctrinate them early if you want it to be successful.  Appeal to public opinion is another logical fallacy.

The purpose of the Constitution was to limit government, not force the States and the people to accept behaviors and legalize murders that they don't want.

What you are attempting to do is to lay every perceived and real moral quandary at the feet of gay marriage.

Nah, that's just you insisting on a ridiculous interpretation in an attempt to invalidate my point.  Don't worry, most people aren't aware of the tactic.

Obviously my point was clearly that the 'slippery slope' you insist 'has yet to show prospect' has already happened wrt abortion such that the unborn are being murdered, dismembered and sold for profit and it is beginning already for the 'gay marriage' decision because Christians are already being targeted with lawsuits for not baking cakes.  That's not really much of a 'slope'... it's more like a cliff.

Even the Court in Roe recognized differences during the various trimesters.  The Catholic Church didn't consider the first stage fetus as a human with a soul until the 1850s.  As for what's been on FoxNews for the past few days, I imagine that has been going on for some time, and it will turn out to hurt the liberals in that area.  I don't see a gay issue involved in fetal body part sales.  While most Americans have no issue with organ donation or stem-cell research, looking at those videos is alarming to many.

The point was that the slippery slope argument that you don't think has 'shown prospect' has, in fact, already occurred wrt abortion.  We can already see it beginning with the 'gay marriage' decision and lawsuits for not baking people cakes.

But nice try again...

I think you seriously missed the point, with of course, all due respect.

I think you seriously misrepresent the points, with of course, all due respect...

[MACVSOG68]

Well of course the court had to say they rejected those arguments in order to conclude as they did.  I thought that rather obvious... and meaningless.  Do you really believe that just because the Court defined-away several completely valid arguments that it means that the Court got it right?  Circular arguments are great, aren't they?

The fact that 40 courts have struck down bans simply shows that the court system is regularly used to thwart the will of the people and force States and people to accept behaviors that they don't want.

Leaving the decision to the States was the right thing to do.  Let the States and the people decide what they want but, oh no, we have to mandate it onto people who don't want it.  The media has been pushing the gay agenda for almost 50 years, recently into the schools because you have to indoctrinate them early if you want it to be successful.  Appeal to public opinion is another logical fallacy.

The purpose of the Constitution was to limit government, not force the States and the people to accept behaviors and legalize murders that they don't want.

Nah, that's just you insisting on a ridiculous interpretation in an attempt to invalidate my point.  Don't worry, most people aren't aware of the tactic.

Obviously my point was clearly that the 'slippery slope' you insist 'has yet to show prospect' has already happened wrt abortion such that the unborn are being murdered, dismembered and sold for profit and it is beginning already for the 'gay marriage' decision because Christians are already being targeted with lawsuits for not baking cakes.  That's not really much of a 'slope'... it's more like a cliff.

The point was that the slippery slope argument that you don't think has 'shown prospect' has, in fact, already occurred wrt abortion.  We can already see it beginning with the 'gay marriage' decision and lawsuits for not baking people cakes.

But nice try again...

I think you seriously misrepresent the points, with of course, all due respect...

If the purpose of the Constitution was to simply limit government and empower states, it might have been preferable to leave the Articles of Confederation in place, or leave the Bill of Rights out, all amendments after the 12th, and certainly not start the Constitution with "We the People".  Should of said "We the States".  Then all of these years of trying to define individual rights could have been left up to each state.  But it isn't that way. 

A completely valid argument to one opponent of a court case is unsound to the other side.  The arguments for or against gay marriage aside, domestic partnership laws of the various states didn't help their position of marriage when they were asked to provide a legitimate compelling state interest for withholding it from the gay community.  Religious and tradition arguments were the main thrust, and since most states already had gay marriages, those didn't strike the Court as compelling in light of the 14th Amendment.

I agree public opinion shouldn't dictate whether someone's rights should be recognized, but as I said, given all the rest of the history, it likely made it easier for the High Court.

And we're discussing the gay marriage issue, so abortion and its various issues aren't relevant to this particular discussion.

[GourmetDan]

If the purpose of the Constitution was to simply limit government and empower states, it might have been preferable to leave the Articles of Confederation in place, or leave the Bill of Rights out, all amendments after the 12th, and certainly not start the Constitution with "We the People".  Should of said "We the States".  Then all of these years of trying to define individual rights could have been left up to each state.  But it isn't that way. 

OK, let's pick this apart one bad statement at a time.

The limit is on the 'federal' government, not government in general.

The States were not 'empowered'.  They already had all the power.

Whether it would have been 'preferable' to pursue any of the paths you cite assumes that your first two statements were true.  They aren't, therefore...

A completely valid argument to one opponent of a court case is unsound to the other side.

Well, they will act like it is because court cases are about 'winning', not finding the truth.  If you don't know that, it may explain this rather naive reliance on court decisions as some sort of absolute truth.

The arguments for or against gay marriage aside, domestic partnership laws of the various states didn't help their position of marriage when they were asked to provide a legitimate compelling state interest for withholding it from the gay community.

The legitimate State interest is the preservation of the existing family unit, including children.  The fact that the courts said that the interest wasn't 'legitimate' doesn't mean that it wasn't.  Remember, the purpose of court is to win, not to find the truth.

Religious and tradition arguments were the main thrust, and since most states already had gay marriages, those didn't strike the Court as compelling in light of the 14th Amendment.

Perfectly valid arguments.  The fact that the Court did not insist that 2 justices recuse themselves because they were obviously biased because they had performed gay weddings shows that the purpose of courts is to win, not find the truth.

I agree public opinion shouldn't dictate whether someone's rights should be recognized, but as I said, given all the rest of the history, it likely made it easier for the High Court.

If you really believed that I wouldn't expect you to keep using the argument.

And we're discussing the gay marriage issue, so abortion and its various issues aren't relevant to this particular discussion.

Of course it is relevant.  You were the one who brought it up when you cited the 14th Amendment, Roe v Wade and said that the 'slippery slope' argument 'has yet to show prospect'. 

Now that it has blown up in your face, you don't want to talk about it any more.

With all due respect, of course...

[MACVSOG68]

OK, let's pick this apart one bad statement at a time.

The limit is on the 'federal' government, not government in general.

The 14th Amendment is a limitation on all government units.

The States were not 'empowered'.  They already had all the power.

Then why did the Constitution apply to a state that would not vote to ratify, and further why does it only take 3/4 of the states to ratify an amendment?  And did the 19th Amendment permit states to withhold the women's right to vote until they ratified it?  The rights of the people do trump the powers of the state when so determined by the courts if necessary.

 

Well, they will act like it is because court cases are about 'winning', not finding the truth.  If you don't know that, it may explain this rather naive reliance on court decisions as some sort of absolute truth.

Always been told how naïve I am concerning our Constitution.  I believe that, now that you've...ratified it.

The legitimate State interest is the preservation of the existing family unit, including children.  The fact that the courts said that the interest wasn't 'legitimate' doesn't mean that it wasn't.  Remember, the purpose of court is to win, not to find the truth.

If the state interest is the preservation of the existing family unit, gay marriage is probably the last thing they should be worried about, given the breakup of the family unit in every way possible having nothing to do with gay marriage.

Perfectly valid arguments.  The fact that the Court did not insist that 2 justices recuse themselves because they were obviously biased because they had performed gay weddings shows that the purpose of courts is to win, not find the truth.

I made the case that the High Court is the final step, not necessarily the correct one (depending on one's opinion) in all cases.

Of course it is relevant.  You were the one who brought it up when you cited the 14th Amendment, Roe v Wade and said that the 'slippery slope' argument 'has yet to show prospect'. 

Now that it has blown up in your face, you don't want to talk about it any more.

Okay, gay marriage is directly linked to abortion and the selling of body parts.     I'm guessing gun control efforts by the liberals are also part of that plan to ultimately legalize gay marriage and child sex..  And remember, the government didn't require vaccinations for our kids until they started planning for gay marriage.  I guess I missed all those linkages, thus confirming your concerns about my naivety.   

Again read what I said WRT the slippery slope argument in the gay marriage issue.  You and others believe that this decision will ultimately lead to atrocities like legalized pedophilia and bestiality.  Since those activities require victims, I doubt very much there's any linkage.  Hope that helped.

[GourmetDan]

The 14th Amendment is a limitation on all government units.

You were referring to the Constitution when you said it was a limitation on government.  Now you are switching to the 14th Amendment.  If the 14th Amendment completely changed the meaning of the Constitution from a limitation on the federal government to a limitation on the States and the people... then perhaps the evidence of federal misconduct in its ratification is true.

The truth is that the 14th Amendment is being applied in a manner that validates the States' concerns of the time and not in accordance with the rest of the Constitution...

Then why did the Constitution apply to a state that would not vote to ratify, and further why does it only take 3/4 of the states to ratify an amendment?  And did the 19th Amendment permit states to withhold the women's right to vote until they ratified it?  The rights of the people do trump the powers of the state when so determined by the courts if necessary.

If the rights of the people come from the Courts because of the 14th Amendment... then the people have no rights... 

Lots of federal shenanigans around the 14th Amendment... for a reason, no doubt...

It’s time to tell the truth; the 14th amendment was never ratified.

"The feds have seized, virtual total control, over every aspect of our lives via the 14th amendment’s “due process” clause. They have concocted a never ending series of “duties and rights” to “justify federal control” based upon that amendment. So I think it is only fair to ask a simple question."

"WAS THE 14TH AMENDMENT LEGITIMATELY RATIFIED?"

"Do you know the answer to that question? Of course not. You only know the lies you were taught in government schools and by the complicit criminal media."

Always been told how naïve I am concerning our Constitution.  I believe that, now that you've...ratified it.

Perhaps it is your belief in an erroneous application of an unratified 14th Amendment that is the problem.

If the state interest is the preservation of the existing family unit, gay marriage is probably the last thing they should be worried about, given the breakup of the family unit in every way possible having nothing to do with gay marriage.

It's the last thing the Supreme Court should have been ruling in favor of, yes...

I made the case that the High Court is the final step, not necessarily the correct one (depending on one's opinion) in all cases.

No... the people are the final step.

The Supreme Court is not “Independent”

"We are told from the time we can think and walk that we have this great system of government built on a system of brilliant checks and balances. It is pounded into our heads in school and in the media. The bulwark of this genius is supposedly our “independent” judiciary. It is indispensable to maintaining our supposed freedoms. It stands guard over our freedoms! The whole tale is such a load of CRAP."

"Today I am going to discuss what it means to have an independent vs. a dependent judiciary. When you finish reading this you will have been given an objective framework with which to analyze the independence of the court’s performance, probably for the first time in your life, and you will then be able to articulate what the real problem is with the system. Instead of just feeling like it is broken."

"You will be able to see how it is an utter FRAUD. So let’s begin."

Okay, gay marriage is directly linked to abortion and the selling of body parts.  I'm guessing gun control efforts by the liberals are also part of that plan to ultimately legalize gay marriage and child sex..  And remember, the government didn't require vaccinations for our kids until they started planning for gay marriage.  I guess I missed all those linkages, thus confirming your concerns about my naivety.   

I simply said that you were the one who brought up the 14th Amendment, Roe v Wade and 'slippery slope' argument that allegedly 'has yet to show prospect' and now that it has blown up in your face, you don't want to talk about it any more.  But I do know how you like to draw ridiculous conclusions to try and invalidate some else's point.  That and the liberal use of emoticons used as 'argument'...

Again read what I said WRT the slippery slope argument in the gay marriage issue.  You and others believe that this decision will ultimately lead to atrocities like legalized pedophilia and bestiality.  Since those activities require victims, I doubt very much there's any linkage.  Hope that helped.

Too bad the unborn cannot speak to you about 'slippery slope' and victims.  You might change your mind about the lack of 'linkage'.

Hope that helped...

[MACVSOG68]

You were referring to the Constitution when you said it was a limitation on government.  Now you are switching to the 14th Amendment.  If the 14th Amendment completely changed the meaning of the Constitution from a limitation on the federal government to a limitation on the States and the people... then perhaps the evidence of federal misconduct in its ratification is true.

The truth is that the 14th Amendment is being applied in a manner that validates the States' concerns of the time and not in accordance with the rest of the Constitution...
If the rights of the people come from the Courts because of the 14th Amendment... then the people have no rights... 

Lots of federal shenanigans around the 14th Amendment... for a reason, no doubt...

It’s time to tell the truth; the 14th amendment was never ratified.

"The feds have seized, virtual total control, over every aspect of our lives via the 14th amendment’s “due process” clause. They have concocted a never ending series of “duties and rights” to “justify federal control” based upon that amendment. So I think it is only fair to ask a simple question."

"WAS THE 14TH AMENDMENT LEGITIMATELY RATIFIED?"

"Do you know the answer to that question? Of course not. You only know the lies you were taught in government schools and by the complicit criminal media."
Perhaps it is your belief in an erroneous application of an unratified 14th Amendment that is the problem.

It's the last thing the Supreme Court should have been ruling in favor of, yes...

No... the people are the final step.

The Supreme Court is not “Independent”

"We are told from the time we can think and walk that we have this great system of government built on a system of brilliant checks and balances. It is pounded into our heads in school and in the media. The bulwark of this genius is supposedly our “independent” judiciary. It is indispensable to maintaining our supposed freedoms. It stands guard over our freedoms! The whole tale is such a load of CRAP."

"Today I am going to discuss what it means to have an independent vs. a dependent judiciary. When you finish reading this you will have been given an objective framework with which to analyze the independence of the court’s performance, probably for the first time in your life, and you will then be able to articulate what the real problem is with the system. Instead of just feeling like it is broken."

"You will be able to see how it is an utter FRAUD. So let’s begin."

I simply said that you were the one who brought up the 14th Amendment, Roe v Wade and 'slippery slope' argument that allegedly 'has yet to show prospect' and now that it has blown up in your face, you don't want to talk about it any more.  But I do know how you like to draw ridiculous conclusions to try and invalidate some else's point.  That and the liberal use of emoticons used as 'argument'...

Too bad the unborn cannot speak to you about 'slippery slope' and victims.  You might change your mind about the lack of 'linkage'.

Hope that helped...

There is little doubt that during and after Reconstruction, many supporters of the Confederacy refused to acknowledge the legitimacy of the 14th Amendment due in large part to the tactics used against the Southern states to complete the ratification process.  But for many decades, the USSC has rejected that, and today whether or not some want to challenge its legality as part of the Constitution, doing so is a fool's errand, and even they know it.

But just think how great our society would be without the 14th.  We wouldn't have had to provide citizenship to our former slaves; the Black Codes might still be in effect along with the later Jim Crow laws; we could keep blacks in their own schools; interracial marriages could be outlawed; most laws permitting discrimination could still remain; bedroom privacy would no longer be permitted; women...and men could be denied birth controls...But at least our ante-bellum social order would still be intact.

But to your concern that the rights of individuals were and should be up to the whim of the states.  Rights come from God and nature and cannot be granted, only protected.  Nor do rights come from the courts or any man-made governmental entity.  They simply exist.

Yes, perhaps my naivety comes from an acceptance of the 14th Amendment.  But I'll accept that and continue to embrace all of the rights amendments.  They are all part of the Constitution I admire.

Yes, the people are the final step, and earlier in this argument, I asked why you (pl) didn't push for a constitutional amendment or an Article V convention of states if gay marriage is of such concern to you (pl).  Past that I'd like to hear what else you think the people can do.

You continue to use abortion as a rationale for your assertion that gay marriage will lead to legalized use of victims in sexual acts.  If you wish to continue discussing abortion, by all means lets move that topic to another thread.  And you charge me with liking ridiculous conclusions...(not enough emoticons ).

I believe we understand each other's positions.