What Should Marriage Be?

[Dr.Who]

Again; Perhaps you can show me the salient part of the Constitution that grants the government the Right to regulate marriage, and impose such a legal form on We The People? No? Didn't think so, ergo they are intruding.

Frankly, we have been hoodwinked!

The Federal Constitution is clear that the powers of the fed are very limited. The States however can make all sorts of laws. But then the fed steps in and says that all the states have to have the same laws in many instances or that anytime things cross borders that it becomes a federal issue. This way as soon as one of the states makes a law about marriage the fed says that it applies to all the states. How is this any different than a federal law?

Here in the US each state provides for the education of it's young. But by the time the fed gets through monkeying around with what it takes and what it gives to the states and the strings that are attached they have gained quite a bit of control. This is just one example.

By the time the fed is done manipulating the states to give itself control it might as well just make the laws itself. Clever little loophole there!

This is blatantly contrary to the intent of the constitution yet it continues. It has gotten so bad that our congressmen openly talk about nationalizing this and that and no one stops to object that they are talking about taking powers that the fed is not permitted to have.

This is one the civil liberties union needs to take on but never will.

 

[numinus]

Again; Perhaps you can show me the salient part of the Constitution that grants the government the Right to regulate marriage, and impose such a legal form on We The People? No? Didn't think so, ergo they are intruding.

Sorry, no cigar. One is a GOVERNMENTAL government, one is a Ladies Coffee Klatch.

Again, show me where in the US Constitution it grants the government the "Right" to intrude into a families business, even if it is "for the children". It simply does not exist.

Family law is an area of the law that deals with family-related issues and domestic relations including, but not limited to:

1. the nature of marriage, civil unions, and domestic partnerships;
2. issues arising during marriage, including spousal abuse, legitimacy, adoption, surrogacy, child abuse, and child abduction
3. the termination of the relationship and ancillary matters including divorce,
4. annulment, property settlements, alimony, and parental responsibility orders (in the United States, child custody and visitation, child support awards).

Now, why would you send me to look into the us constitution for a statutory law, hmmm?

Well then, you've been fooled. We only provided THEM with the opportunity to establish their own government. We didn't establish anything.

The us violated iraqi sovereignty by conducting an armed invasion without un security council approval.

Call it what you wish, if that would let you sleep at night. Defending it in international law -- now, that's another matter entirely.

Oooh, and what good have these "sanctions" done, other than to starve the very children you seem so concerned about? A mouthpiece? What a load of tripe. We don't need the UN to be a platform of us, if we want to tell someone something, we tell them.

And when the us criticizes a nation for its human rights record, what human rights do you suppose is your government talking about, hmmm?

Ducking the point I see. Care to try again?

That was the point.

Unless you think the us is a permanent security council member for the brains of your diplomats.

Oh, and un financing is voluntary. It is assessed based on a nations gnp.

We are NOT a "democracy", we are a Constitutional Representative Republic. And if you'll notice, the more people talk about "democracy" the closer we get to mob rule. Haven't you noticed that in the past few decades, how so many people are complaining because the popular vote doesn't count in Presidential elections? Mob Rule.

Democracy is a system of government by which political sovereignty is retained by the people and either exercised directly by citizens or through their elected representatives. It is derived from the Greek δημοκρατία ([dimokratia] (help·info)), "popular government" which was coined from δήμος (dēmos), "people" and κράτος (kratos), "rule, strength" in the middle of the 5th century BC to denote the political systems then existing in some Greek city-states, notably Athens.

How is the us not a democracy again?

If you're telling me that the UN is somehow a good thing, without providing any proof in support of that specious argument, you ARE putting your hand in my pocket, because it's people like you, and your un-constitutional hacks in Washington DC, who raise my taxes to support the UN.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations

Satisfied?

Marriage license? Show me where in the Constitution it gives the government the right to in any way regulate it, and I'll support their "license", but until then, yes I will complain about their un-constitutional activities.

Drivers licenses? Not at all. The Constitution specifically grants the government the right to establish the "post roads", and as such, they have the right to regulate the use of the "post roads". It also grants them the right to regulate interstate commerce, so again, Completely Constitutional.

Business licenses? For businesses doing business only in their own community (like mine does), completely un-constitutional. If a business engages in business across State lines (like a business I worked for at one time), then their licenses are covered by the interstate commerce clause, and are completely constitutional.

Income taxes are covered under the 16th Amendment. What I will complain about though is the fact that my tax dollars are being spent on so many things that are blatantly un-constitutional ON THEIR FACE.

Payments to the government for it's continual operation are fine, but only so long as those payments are strictly for those functions specifically enumerated in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. Any other expenditure is purely un-constitutional ON IT'S FACE.

Sigh.

The constitution was never meant to usurp the function of state legislature.

 

[Federal Farmer]

Family law is an area of the law that deals with family-related issues and domestic relations including, but not limited to:

1. the nature of marriage, civil unions, and domestic partnerships;
2. issues arising during marriage, including spousal abuse, legitimacy, adoption, surrogacy, child abuse, and child abduction
3. the termination of the relationship and ancillary matters including divorce,
4. annulment, property settlements, alimony, and parental responsibility orders (in the United States, child custody and visitation, child support awards).

Now, why would you send me to look into the us constitution for a statutory law, hmmm?

Because in order for a statutory law to be LEGAL, it has to have Constitutional backing, and since the Constitution does not specifically enumerate among the specific rights of the Congress the authority to legislate in any way the institution of marriage, it falls the the 9th and 10th Amendments, meaning to We The People.

The us violated iraqi sovereignty by conducting an armed invasion without un security council approval.

Perhaps you can show me the part of the Constitution that requires the UN Security Councils approval for us to declare War against another nation? The last time I looked (about 10 seconds ago), that was left up the the US Congress.

Call it what you wish, if that would let you sleep at night. Defending it in international law -- now, that's another matter entirely.

And we are not bound by any mythical "international law", we are bound by US Law, and the UN be damned.

And when the us criticizes a nation for its human rights record, what human rights do you suppose is your government talking about, hmmm?

Non responsive to the statement. Care to try again?

That was the point.

Unless you think the us is a permanent security council member for the brains of your diplomats.

Oh, and un financing is voluntary. It is assessed based on a nations gnp.

No it wasn't, and you're still tap dancing.

Democracy is a system of government by which political sovereignty is retained by the people and either exercised directly by citizens or through their elected representatives. It is derived from the Greek δημοκρατία ([dimokratia] (help·info)), "popular government" which was coined from δήμος (dēmos), "people" and κράτος (kratos), "rule, strength" in the middle of the 5th century BC to denote the political systems then existing in some Greek city-states, notably Athens.

How is the us not a democracy again?

Well goody, you get a gold star for the day for 3rd grade comprehension of what the word Democracy means, but since it grossly fails to account for which of the hundreds of types of "democracies" there are, would you care to try for another by defining it using a realistic metric, possibly one that approaches the level of a Junior High School student? The United States is a Constitutional Representative Republic, which means that our government is regulated by a Constitution, in which the will of the people (res publica) is directed through our Representatives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations

Satisfied?

Nope, they're still an utterly useless waste of time and money, MY money.

Sigh.

The constitution was never meant to usurp the function of state legislature.

Haven't you heard? We now have the 14th Amendment (ratified in 1868) which requires that all States abide by the same rules (Article 1 Section 8) as the Federal Government, thereby stripping them of their most fundamental Rights. Then there's that pesky 17th Amendment (ratified in 1913) which finally fully stripped the States of their Rights by allowing the population to select Senators instead of their States Legislatures. These two Amendments stripped the States of their sovereign Rights, and turned them over to the Federal Government, which is why Roe v Wade, and other similar States Rights issues are now the law of the land, regardless of what the States themselves may or may not want.

 

[SW85]

Because in order for a statutory law to be LEGAL, it has to have Constitutional backing, and since the Constitution does not specifically enumerate among the specific rights of the Congress the authority to legislate in any way the institution of marriage, it falls the the 9th and 10th Amendments, meaning to We The People.

E.g., the states.

The ones that currently govern marriage law.

Has numinus argued it is or ought to be otherwise?

 

[Federal Farmer]

Maybe you can point out the relevant bits of civil or common law in which the government "imposes" marriage on anyone?

Not even a good try. The government imposes itself on marriage by regulating what it does not have the authority to regulate. Also, perhaps you'd be better served by reading up on your Blackstone to determine in what ways the State may, or may not regulate marriage as it was understood by the Founding Fathers when they wrote the Constitution.

If marriage is indeed a contract, all parties (including the state) must enter into it voluntarily -- if people were compelled to marry, the marriage contract would be void on grounds of duress, no?

The contract itself does not involve the state, it is a contract between two people, and the state's only function in marriage is to determine if the contract is entered into without coercion or duress, and that the persons entering into the contract are not disabled from being married at all, i.e. they are already married, they are too young to marry, and if, as is still required in some States, that the banns haven't been read (the marriage announcement) to give people the opportunity to object, or that they are mentally disallowed to be married.

What the State may not do, Constitutionally, is determine who may or may not be married, whether they be heterosexual or homosexual, if they are of age, if they consent, and if there is no disability from entering into the marriage contract.

What we are dealing with here though is not what the Constitution says, or even what it means, but what powers the government has usurped from We The People. WE allowed the government to have the power, we supported the government having that power, and now if we want that power back, we must TAKE it, because the government never gives back once it has taken. What I find most annoying about this entire subject is that some of you are only concerned with re-securing some of the power for some of the people, and not demanding the return of ALL of our Rights to ALL of the people where it truly belongs, and that is disingenuous, intellectually dishonest, and morally bankrupt.

If you are going to say that gays should have this "right", that "right", or the other "right", I'm going to stand here and say NO, they are not "rights", but only privileges until you figure out that those "rights" you keep talking about belong to EVERYONE, at which point they ARE Rights, because Rights belong to EVERYONE, privileges belong to just the select few. So drop the "gay" BS and demand that EVERYONE receive EQUAL Rights, or STFU.

 

[Federal Farmer]

Frankly, we have been hoodwinked!

The Federal Constitution is clear that the powers of the fed are very limited. The States however can make all sorts of laws. But then the fed steps in and says that all the states have to have the same laws in many instances or that anytime things cross borders that it becomes a federal issue. This way as soon as one of the states makes a law about marriage the fed says that it applies to all the states. How is this any different than a federal law?

Here in the US each state provides for the education of it's young. But by the time the fed gets through monkeying around with what it takes and what it gives to the states and the strings that are attached they have gained quite a bit of control. This is just one example.

By the time the fed is done manipulating the states to give itself control it might as well just make the laws itself. Clever little loophole there!

This is blatantly contrary to the intent of the constitution yet it continues. It has gotten so bad that our congressmen openly talk about nationalizing this and that and no one stops to object that they are talking about taking powers that the fed is not permitted to have.

This is one the civil liberties union needs to take on but never will.

THANK GOD SOMEBODY BESIDES ME UNDERSTANDS THIS!

Bravo, Bravo! Stand up and take a bow!

 

[numinus]

Because in order for a statutory law to be LEGAL, it has to have Constitutional backing, and since the Constitution does not specifically enumerate among the specific rights of the Congress the authority to legislate in any way the institution of marriage, it falls the the 9th and 10th Amendments, meaning to We The People.

Are you saying that the states do not have autonomy to enact their own legislation?

Perhaps you can show me the part of the Constitution that requires the UN Security Councils approval for us to declare War against another nation? The last time I looked (about 10 seconds ago), that was left up the the US Congress.

Article 2, section 2 -- presidential powers

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Charter

The United Nations Charter is the treaty that forms and establishes the international organization called the United Nations[1]. It was signed at the United Nations Conference on International Organization in San Francisco, California, United States, on June 26, 1945, by 50 of the 51 original member countries (Poland, the other original member, which was not represented at the conference, signed it later). It entered into force on October 24, 1945, after being ratified by the five permanent members of the Security Council—the Republic of China (later replaced by the People's Republic of China), France, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (later replaced by the Russian Federation), the United Kingdom, and the United States—and a majority of the other signatories.

As a Charter, it is a constituent treaty, and all members are bound by its articles. Furthermore, the Charter states that obligations to the United Nations prevail over all other treaty obligations.[1] Most countries in the world have now ratified the Charter. One notable exception is the Holy See, which has chosen to remain a permanent observer state and therefore is not a full signatory to the Charter.

The us government is bound by the TREATIES it enters into, the authority for which is vested in the chief executive BY THE PEOPLE.

And we are not bound by any mythical "international law", we are bound by US Law, and the UN be damned.

As I have said, nations are bound by the TREATIES THEY ENTER INTO.

Non responsive to the statement. Care to try again?

Of course it is responsive. Other nations are not bound by the us constitution. They are, however, bound by the treaties they enter into -- including the sanctions that result from non-compliance.

No it wasn't, and you're still tap dancing.

See the above.

Well goody, you get a gold star for the day for 3rd grade comprehension of what the word Democracy means, but since it grossly fails to account for which of the hundreds of types of "democracies" there are, would you care to try for another by defining it using a realistic metric, possibly one that approaches the level of a Junior High School student? The United States is a Constitutional Representative Republic, which means that our government is regulated by a Constitution, in which the will of the people (res publica) is directed through our Representatives.

You just restated wikipedia.

A government that is 'regulated by a constitution in which the will of the people (res publica) is directed through our representative' IS A FORM OF DEMOCRACY.

Therefore, the us government IS A DEMOCRACY.

Junior high level enough for you?

Nope, they're still an utterly useless waste of time and money, MY money.

Not YOUR money. It is the COMMONWEALTH's.

Haven't you heard? We now have the 14th Amendment (ratified in 1868) which requires that all States abide by the same rules (Article 1 Section 8) as the Federal Government, thereby stripping them of their most fundamental Rights. Then there's that pesky 17th Amendment (ratified in 1913) which finally fully stripped the States of their Rights by allowing the population to select Senators instead of their States Legislatures. These two Amendments stripped the States of their sovereign Rights, and turned them over to the Federal Government, which is why Roe v Wade, and other similar States Rights issues are now the law of the land, regardless of what the States themselves may or may not want.

You are getting confused.

How exactly does assessment of marriage licenses unconstitutional, hmmm?

 

[SW85]

View Post
Because in order for a statutory law to be LEGAL, it has to have Constitutional backing, and since the Constitution does not specifically enumerate among the specific rights of the Congress the authority to legislate in any way the institution of marriage, it falls the the 9th and 10th Amendments, meaning to We The People.

Which means the states legislate on it. As they presently do. QED.

Haven't you heard? We now have the 14th Amendment (ratified in 1868) which requires that all States abide by the same rules (Article 1 Section 8) as the Federal Government, thereby stripping them of their most fundamental Rights.

That is a charitable misinterpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, which requires that states respect the same rights the federal government does.

For instance: the federal government must respect the right to free speech. There was a time when the argument could reasonably be made that only the federal govenrment was obligated to do that, and that it was not binding on states. Because of the Fourteenth Amendment, it is.

There is no conceivable way in which the Fourteenth Amendment limits the authority of the states to legislate on marriage.

 

[Federal Farmer]

Are you saying that the states do not have autonomy to enact their own legislation?

Of course they do, provided their legislation is in line with the US Constitution, and in no way violated FEDERAL LAW.

Article 2, section 2 -- presidential powers <snip>

The us government is bound by the TREATIES it enters into, the authority for which is vested in the chief executive BY THE PEOPLE.

As I have said, nations are bound by the TREATIES THEY ENTER INTO.

God you're easy! Now, please present for the class, the specific part our Treaty with the UN that prohibits us from declaring War without the approval of the UN.

A government that is 'regulated by a constitution in which the will of the people (res publica) is directed through our representative' IS A FORM OF DEMOCRACY.

Therefore, the us government IS A DEMOCRACY.

Junior high level enough for you?

And using your convoluted excuse for logic, we can therefore call every tree, bush, and plant a "Begonia", because, after all, they are all members of the Kingdom of Plante, so no, you're still in grade school.

Not YOUR money. It is the COMMONWEALTH's.

The United States is NOT a "commonwealth", nor for that matter is my State.

You are getting confused.

How exactly does assessment of marriage licenses unconstitutional, hmmm?

The license itself is not, prohibiting someone from attaining one based on their sexual orientation IS, as the individuals would be able to attain one if they were marrying someone of the opposite sex.

 

[Federal Farmer]

Which means the states legislate on it. As they presently do. QED.

Afraid not. Since the 14th and 17th Amendments, the States must comply with FEDERAL law, specifically the Constitution, so the 9th and 10th Amendment protections apply only to the people.

That is a charitable misinterpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, which requires that states respect the same rights the federal government does.

For instance: the federal government must respect the right to free speech. There was a time when the argument could reasonably be made that only the federal govenrment was obligated to do that, and that it was not binding on states. Because of the Fourteenth Amendment, it is.

There is no conceivable way in which the Fourteenth Amendment limits the authority of the states to legislate on marriage.

If the States are required to completely comport themselves in harmony with the US Constitution, that includes any and all 'laws' concerning marriage, since the 14th specifically demands that;

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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."

If we look at our Blackstone (linked to above), we find that even in the 18th Century there were no specific prohibitions against someone marrying someone else because they were of the same sex, and as a matter of clear Constitutional meaning, anything that the Constitution is silent on MUST be deferred to the people as is specified in the 9th Amendment until such time as a Constitutional Amendment is passed addressing the issue specifically.

 

[SW85]

You're getting incoherent, FF.

You're saying the 10th Amendment bars the federal government from regulating anything not in the Constitution, and the 14th Amendment bars states from regulating whatever the Constitution doesn't say the federal government can regulate. Which means, by definition, that states cannot regulate anything. I don't want to insult you by suggesting you actually believe this, but jeez. Your understanding of the 14th Amendment is very clearly, catastrophically flawed.

Re: Blackstone (which, while useful, is not a substitute for the simple and plain construction of the language of the Constitution, or the logical definition of marriage as a contract between two people and the state for the purposes of promoting the family), I would think the fact that he refers to "hufband and wife" amounts to a pretty explicit exclusion of same-sex marriage.

 

[Federal Farmer]

You're getting incoherent, FF.

You're saying the 10th Amendment bars the federal government from regulating anything not in the Constitution, and the 14th Amendment bars states from regulating whatever the Constitution doesn't say the federal government can regulate. Which means, by definition, that states cannot regulate anything. I don't want to insult you by suggesting you actually believe this, but jeez. Your understanding of the 14th Amendment is very clearly, catastrophically flawed.

You've taken a basic truth and tried to twist it, so let's try this again. The 9th Amendment clearly states that "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people", and the 10th says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Now, given that the 14th requires that the States comport themselves in compliance with the Constitution, and Article 1 Section 8 clearly enumerates those things that the government has the authority to Legislate on, then the States are prohibited from legislating on anything not specifically enumerated in Article 1 Section 8, and anything else is, by default, retained as a natural right by the people.

Now, you claim that my understanding of the 14th is flawed, yet you provide no rebuttal, or counter argument to support your position. I now invite you to elucidate precisely where my interpretation of the 14th is allegedly flawed, with appropriate supporting documentation and citation, or I will be left with no other choice but to conclude that you simply disagree, but have nothing on which to base your disagreement, so you're resorting to the "nanny nanny boo boo" school of debate.

Re: Blackstone (which, while useful, is not a substitute for the simple and plain construction of the language of the Constitution, or the logical definition of marriage as a contract between two people and the state for the purposes of promoting the family), I would think the fact that he refers to "hufband and wife" amounts to a pretty explicit exclusion of same-sex marriage.

Blackstone was THE legal source at the time the Constitution was ratified, which is why I referred to it. As for your assertion concerning "hufband and wife", yet your rather duplicitous exclusion of the rest of the salient part of his treatise might cause one (but not I) to question your integrity. So, shall we look at it in it's ENTIRE context?

Blackstone clearly enumerated among his "Rights of Persons" that the 2 requirements that must be met for a marriage license to be considered are as follows:

FIRST, they muft be willing to contract. “Confenfus, non concubitus, facit nuptias,” is the maxim of the civil law in this cafeb : and it is adopted by the common lawyersc , who indeed have borrowed (efpecially in antient times) almoft all their notions of the legitimacy of marriage from the canon and civil laws.

SECONDLY, they muft be able to contract. In general, all perfons are able to contract themfelves in marriage, unlefs they labour under fome particular difabilities, and incapacities. What thofe are, it will here be our bufinefs to enquire.

Neither of these excludes homosexuals from being allowed to enter into such a contract. Further, when one looks at the disabilities established by Blackstone, the canonical (religious) and the legal, and again, among the enumerated disabilities like existing marriage, age of consent, consent of parents or the banns having been read, mental incapacity, and willingness to contract, again, none of these prohibits homosexuals from entering into a marriage contract.

The only possible way for homosexuals to be denied the ability to enter into a marriage contract would be for the fact of homosexuality to be declared illegal, or for all homosexuals to be disenfranchised on the basis of mental incapacity, but lacking these, they may not be denied their right to enter into a marriage contract.

I want to be clear here, on a personal level I find homosexuality to be repugnant, but if I am to consider myself a good and proper American, I must be true to the principles under which our Constitution operates, to the Oath I took, put my own personal feelings aside, and recognize that they, just like all other Americans have their rights, and I must defend them just as I would anyone else's, or I forfeit my own.

 

[numinus]

Of course they do, provided their legislation is in line with the US Constitution, and in no way violated FEDERAL LAW.

Good.

Now you just need to demonstrate how state legislations regarding marriage violates the un constitution.

God you're easy! Now, please present for the class, the specific part our Treaty with the UN that prohibits us from declaring War without the approval of the UN.

Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter sets out the UN Security Council's powers to maintain peace. It allows the Council to "determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression" and to take military and nonmilitary action to "restore international peace and security".

Chapter VII also gives the Military Staff Committee responsibility for strategic coordination of forces placed at the disposal of the UN Security Council. It is made up of the chiefs of staff of the five permanent members of the Council.

The UN Charter's prohibition of member states of the UN attacking other UN member states is central to the purpose for which the UN was founded in the wake of the destruction of World War II[: to prevent war. This overriding concern is also reflected in the Nuremberg Trials' concept of a crime against peace "starting or waging a war against the territorial integrity, political independence or sovereignty of a state, or in violation of international treaties or agreements..." (crime against peace), which was held to be the crime that makes all war crimes possible.

Easy enough for you?

And using your convoluted excuse for logic, we can therefore call every tree, bush, and plant a "Begonia", because, after all, they are all members of the Kingdom of Plante, so no, you're still in grade school.

The United States is NOT a "commonwealth", nor for that matter is my State.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth

The English noun commonwealth dates from the fifteenth century. The original phrase "common-wealth" or "the common weal" comes from the old meaning of "wealth," which is "well-being". The term literally meant "common well-being". Thus commonwealth originally meant a state or nation-state governed for the common good as opposed to an authoritarian state governed for the benefit of a given class of owners. The word was a calque on the Latin phrase res publica meaning "public affairs" or "the state", from which the English word republic arises.

Today the term is more general and means a political community.

The type of community indicated by the term commonwealth varies. For instance, in different contexts it might indicate:

1. a political unit founded in law by agreement of the people for the common good;
2. a federated union of constituent states;
3. a community of sovereign states;
4. a republic;
5. a democratic constitutional monarchy;

What part of that definition precludes the us from being a commonwealth, hmmm?

The license itself is not, prohibiting someone from attaining one based on their sexual orientation IS, as the individuals would be able to attain one if they were marrying someone of the opposite sex.

Not at all.

It does not preclude ANYONE from entering a personal relationship with the same sex. It only means that such personal relationships are not MARRIAGES.

Or are you suggesting that ALL personal relationships are MARRIAGES, in the same manner that you can call ANY plant, bush or tree, 'begonia' simply because they are all members of the plant kingdom, hmmm?

Or, more absurd, that the license itself prohibits anyone from entering into personal relationships as they wish?

Exactly whose logic is convoluted, I wonder?

 

[Federal Farmer]

Good.

Now you just need to demonstrate how state legislations regarding marriage violates the un constitution.

There you go with the UN again (and it's UN Charter, not Constitution). We were talking about States and US Constitutional law.

Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter sets out the UN Security Council's powers to maintain peace.

<snip non=responsive>

Easy enough for you?

Completely non-responsive to the question asked. Present the salient part of OUR Treaty with the UN that PROHIBITS us from declaring War without UN approval.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth

<snip irrelevant>

What part of that definition precludes the us from being a commonwealth, hmmm?

Here we go with 3rd grade comprehension again.

Not at all.

It does not preclude ANYONE from entering a personal relationship with the same sex. It only means that such personal relationships are not MARRIAGES.

Or are you suggesting that ALL personal relationships are MARRIAGES, in the same manner that you can call ANY plant, bush or tree, 'begonia' simply because they are all members of the plant kingdom, hmmm?

Or, more absurd, that the license itself prohibits anyone from entering into personal relationships as they wish?

Exactly whose logic is convoluted, I wonder?

And again with the strawman. It is a MARRIAGE license, not a "relationship" license. You seem to persist in trying to change the definitions of word, or worse yet, the conditions of the discussion, Can you not stay on point? If they prohibit anyone from attaining a marriage license solely on the grounds of ones sexual orientation, they are in violation of the individuals 9th and 10th Amendment Rights.

Why do you insist on being so homophobic? I was under the impression that liberals supported "gay rights", yet here you are trying to argue why they shouldn't be allowed to marry!

 

[numinus]

There you go with the UN again (and it's UN Charter, not Constitution). We were talking about States and US Constitutional law.

Im sorry. I meant how does it contradict the US constitution.

Completely non-responsive to the question asked. Present the salient part of OUR Treaty with the UN that PROHIBITS us from declaring War without UN approval.

I just did.

When you sign a treaty for the purpose of preventing war, you can't really declare war on another based on inuendos, now, can you? An invasion, by itself, is not justifed or otherwise. You need to give a justification for it to be justified, no? And who exactly, determines what is or isn't justified, hmmm?

Here we go with 3rd grade comprehension again.

I provided you the definition of a commonwealth that completely debunks your assertion that the us is not a commonwealth.

And all you can do is roll your eyes? The way 3rd graders roll their eyes when they are entirely clueless?

And again with the strawman. It is a MARRIAGE license, not a "relationship" license. You seem to persist in trying to change the definitions of word, or worse yet, the conditions of the discussion, Can you not stay on point? If they prohibit anyone from attaining a marriage license solely on the grounds of ones sexual orientation, they are in violation of the individuals 9th and 10th Amendment Rights.

You are the one who can't seem to stay on the point, or is hell-bent on changing the definitions of words.

A marriage is the union of a man and a woman.

What is the sense, therefore, in giving a marriage license for homosexual unions, hmmm?

As if the flawless logic isn't plain enough!

Why do you insist on being so homophobic? I was under the impression that liberals supported "gay rights", yet here you are trying to argue why they shouldn't be allowed to marry!

A man is a man and a woman is a woman and a marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Does it make one a homophobe by stating these FACTS?

And you may label me anything you wish. I only give opinions based on FACTS AND LOGIC -- not what you might imagine a 'liberal' or 'conservative' ought to support.

Capice?