Members banned from this thread: Humorme
| || |
Surely you know that this:
Hey! The year 2004 called -- they want their wild-eyed, slippery-slope partisan diatribe back. If you could just return it, I'm sure they'll let bygones be bygones.
You're wrong about "what's next", by the way. Don't worry about it though, I'm sure when the time comes you'll find a way to tailor your Jeremiads to suit the facts on the ground.
Do you think it is within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to create new constitutional rights?
The United States Supreme Court weighed in on a supposed "right" to gay marriage. Justice Scalia, in that case:
"Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda through normal democratic means." The majority's "invention of a brand-new 'constitutional right'", he wrote, showed it was "impatient of democratic change".
A nonexistent "right" for gay marriage was invented in the United States Supreme Court in 2003. It is literally the United States Supreme Court legislating from the bench. Shall I repeat George Washington's words OR are you capable of accessing post # 24 on this thread and reading it this time?
I would not get all that comfortable with the concept of gay marriage if you're afraid to answer the question. When the U.S. Supreme Court creates new law, they can just as easily reverse themselves. Don't you think the right way to get a law passed is via the legislatures so that an actual statute exists? Havelock is trying to introduce a new theory of law - so read his / her posts. It will become clear to you. Take a deep breath. Relax. Breathe. Repeat.
So why do you think that heterosexuals should have your back in your fight?
If you recall, in an earlier post, I told you how gay marriage was invented by the United States Supreme Court. And, bear in mind, you are FOR claiming that the 14th Amendment is legitimate. I'd like to continue from that earlier post with what Supreme Court Justice Scalia stated with regard to this legislating from the bench:
"Scalia wrote that if the court was not prepared to validate laws based on moral choices as it had done in Bowers, state laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity would not prove sustainable."
Don't you find your position a bit hypocritical given the facts presented? On what grounds would you stand against other sexual choices?
Last edited by Humorme; 23rd December 2016 at 04:02 AM.
You're just presenting your unsupported opinion that the ruling on same sex marriage represents the creation of a new right out of thin air, and ignore the fact that, as I pointed out, is based of the body of constitutional law.
You think it will be reversed. How is that going to happen? They can't just revisit the case at will. A new case will have to be brought and make it's way up to the SCOTUS. Never in history has a right that has been established be reversed. Not happening.