Our Constitution Belongs to ...

Yeah. Cannons that shoot projectiles.

Maybe the 2nd does, but the 14th absolutely does.

 

No it doesn’t. I suppose you could make the at guy meet that you can’t preclude owning one based on race religion or gender because of the 14th, but that’s redundant. The second guarantees the right to own it.

 

Of course it does. Same way it lets me marry whomever I want.

 

No it doesn’t. I suppose you could make the argument that you can’t preclude owning one based on race religion or gender because of the 14th, but that’s redundant. The second guarantees the right to own it.

 

Yeah, it takes people to agree with and defend the words of the governing document...

 

RAAA.

 

No, SCOTUS changed the 14th Amendment by way of "reinterpretation".

Those don't overrule the US Constitution.

Nope. Marriage is the sacred union between an adult man and an adult woman, in which those two separate physical bodies become one single body (in spirit). Marriage serves as a model of (and the institution of marriage itself derives from) the relationship between Jesus Christ (the "husband") and The Church (his "bride").

No it isn't.

 

ARF. RAAA.

 

It's freedom OF religion, NOT freedom "from"... READ. THE. CONSTITUTION. FOR. A. CHANGE.

YOU are the one who isn't understanding what the Constitution says. I doubt you have ever read it. What "fallacies"? Fallacies are errors of logic. What logic errors are you referring to?

Incorrect. Marriage is as I have defined it above. Anything outside of that is a redefinition of the term. I'm not saying that one has to believe the Christian bit I placed at the end of the definition (that's only for if one has placed their faith in Christianity). I personally think the bit at the end fully ties together the purpose of the institution of marriage.

 

I accept again

 

SCOTUS has no mechanism to change an amendment. What they did was strike down a law which violated the 14th.

Those applied the constitution striking down state laws which violated the 14th

Demonstrably false.

demonstrably is. Overgfell v Hodges.

 

Why not just call it what it is a civil union.

 

CORRECT!!! You're starting to understand!!!

The law didn't violate the 14th. SCOTUS unconstitutionally re-interpreted the 14th so that it "violated the 14th". Apparently you don't understand after all...

The 14th wasn't violated by the States.

Yes, your arguments are.

A court case does not change the US Constitution.

 

ive always understood. It’s why I keep correcting you.

well, reality shows otherwise.

Demonstrably false. It’s why interracial couples and same sex couples can now marry.

I’ve proven my arguments are correct, using US law and Supreme Court precedent. You are fully aware of that.

strawman. The constitution wasn’t changed. Laws that violated the constitution were struck down.

 

The Constitution which I cited is not a fallacy.

 

The Tax and Spend clause is NOT about benefiting citizens as individuals or a group, it is about funding the legitimate operations and functions and paying the debts of and maintaining the assets of the UNITED STATES, in the Constitution that means the federal government.

 

Inversion Fallacy.

Buzzword Fallacy. Define "reality".

Interracial couples could always marry, and still marry today. Same sex couples do not marry, even today.

US law and SCOTUS precedent do not change the US Constitution. You are fully aware of that.

It was re-interpreted. Re-interpreting IS changing.

Via re-interpretation... They don't violate the 14th Amendment as it was ratified by the States.

 

already established you don’t know what this means.

You are fully aware of its meaning.

Both demonstrably false. Interracial couples couldn’t marry hence Loving v virginia. Now they can. Same sex couples couldn’t marry until obergfell v Hodges. Now they can and do.

neither of which changed the constitution. You are fully aware of that.

It was not. The plain English of the 14th is crystal clear. You can’t discriminate based on race religion or gender. It’s why interracial couples can now marry, and why same sex couples can now marry.

Proven false

 

Inability to refute any facts duly noted FTR!

 

There can be NO freedom OF religion WITHOUT freedom FROM religion!

Your fallacies establish that you do not understand the concepts in the Constitution that protect Individual Rights. The theist version holy matrimony is a VIOLATION of freedom FROM religion and the Individual's Right to marry the consenting adult of their choice.

 

Because the Law of the Land calls it a Marriage Contract.

 

Your FALLACIES about the Constitution are still DEBUNKED by the FACTS!

 

You've debunked nothing especially the Constitution.

 

How can you have freedom from something?

 

Never heard of a THEOCRACY?

https://www.artofmanliness.com/articles/freedom-from-freedom-to/