The rights of the minority are not subject to a popular vote...

Yeah, 1978 Wisconsin and many other states it was still illegal to do so.

Agreed

 

agruing with me that you feel the supreme court is wrong doesn't change the fact that marriage is a basic civil right.

 

Its one of those realities that your delusion wont allow you to accept. The distinction still exists in 40 states.

 

your statement.........

regarding the courts ruling in loving is incorrect. no such distinction exists. sorry

 

I really don't know where you get these ideas from. The Supreme Court only has the power to "interpret" the Constitution, not change it, but to provide the "meaning" of the Constitution. That "meaning" was provided and created by the FOUNDERS. You NEED formal government permission to get married. To say you don't is a lie. To say marriage is a right is a lie since you don't need permission to exercise a "right." Go ask the Supreme Court why you need permission to exercise a "right."

Do you think you need permission to exercise a "RIGHT?" Is that what Democrats have taught you?

 

they didn't change the constitution. they interpreted the 14th's equal protection clause and applied it to marriage.

marrige is a basic civil right.

 

Here we go again. The LEFT Makin' Stuff Up.

The relevant verbiage of the Fourteenth Amendment is below:

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.​

pro•tect
[pruh-tekt] Show IPA

verb (used with object)
1. to defend or guard from attack, invasion, loss, annoyance, insult, etc.; cover or shield from injury or danger.

http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...hts-minority-not-subject-popular-vote-29.html​

Again laws are to PROTECT and safeguard Individual RIGHTS. The Fourteenth Amendment has nothing to do with homosexual marriage. To say it does is rewriting the Constitution illegally. It was a Reconstruction Amendment after the Civil War. After the Civil War newly freed black people were being murdered, and law enforcement was refusing to investigate. Laws against being murdered are to protect. The "Equal Protection of the Law" clause was to do just what it said, which has nothing to do with marriage. How is the ability for same sex couples to marry a "protection?" You aren't redefining words to make a dishonest "point" are you? Are you saying words mean something other than what they mean?

Oh I know, the LEFT just HATES the Constitution as it basically outlaws THEM which kind of was the FOUNDERS purpose in life!

 

you can keep arguing until you fingers fall off from all the typing, but marriage remains a basic civil right, and as such protected by the 14th amendment. If the supreme court ever reverses that decision (loving v virginia)you will have an argument. Until then, you don't.

 

Exactly.

 

How the Supreme Court 'interprets' our Constitution (and interpretations have indeed varied over time), affects how that law is applied or enforced. "Citizens United" is a good example of that.

Now, if you do not see that... there is little use arguing it with you.

 

See, Youz Guyz argue AGAINST reality. So, tell us all why a "license" is NEEDED to exercise a basic human "RIGHT" according to Youz GuyZ...? Again, the LEFT argues against reality to make their dishonest points... They HAVE to since the LEFT (mostly Decorates) are an illegitimate political movement as the Democrat Party is the party of Lies, Threats, and Coercion; Treason. I keep asking why is a "license" needed, and oh it is, but I keep asking why a "license" is needed to exercise a basic "right" and no one has yet answered... Yet MORE proof that if the LEFT had to use real words with honest definitions they would have nothing to say!

A little logic lesion.

The color blue has many different shades, but if you tell someone something is "blue" they have a pretty good idea what it looks like. If you corrupt the definition of "blue" to include shades of "yellow" the exact "point' of the conversation is lost. That is EXACTLY what the LEFT tries to do because they lose each and every argument if people know and use the real definitions of real words.

 

Here is ANOTHER lesson in logic for Youz Guyz. RIGHTS are created from Natural Law. They can't be legitimately violated. Any law which seeks to violate Natural Law is doomed o failure. CASE IN POINT: The PROGRESSIVES passed the Eighteenth Amendment for the prohibition of alcohol. That "law" violated Human Nature, and Natural Law as they are one-in=the-same. That law was so unsuccessful it started in internal war where law enforcement was regularly fired upon with automatic weapons and many people really did not care. There was no "outrage at the criminality." The Eighteenth Amendment was later repealed because it was so unworkable, and so violated Natural Law. Obamacare will suffer the same fate even though it is not a legitimate Constitutional Amendment and therefore wholly unconstitutional; a living example of Democrat Tyranny!

 

You want to play WORD games; I'm telling you like it REALLY is.

What?! Can't face reality as it actually touches you? (I wonder.)

 

Rights aren't granted. They exist independently of any government.

 

"Citizens United?" What a silly example of a "changing Constitution." The Constitution acknowledges the Right to Assemble, and the Right to Freedom of Speech. Corporations are people "assembling" and "speaking their mind," or exercising Freedom of Speech, something no one questions when unions do it with money TAKEN from their members who don't agree with their political points-of-view. Great example!

 

Nonsense. I inferred that "interpretation" of the law (Constitution) changes how it is applied/enforced.

Now, you can keep playing stupid word-games all you want... but I know what I and other Americans have experienced as such.

You're like the guy who tries to convince someone they are not being treated a certain way, when it is obvious that they are. I don't trust what you say and I think that is a good thing.

 

In principle, I might agree with that.

Still, I think you are approaching this with a drawing-board approach; academically you may have something. But what I'm telling you (or anyone else) is that if the law does NOT define your rights (which they SURELY DO), you would not have anyone backing you up according to the same.

Do you think that without a legal definition of your "rights", anyone (including the authorities) would regard the same?

LOL!!! You can play this word-game over "rights" and "liberties" or whatever... but it is the enforcement of LAWS which define your rights, that ensures you ACTUALLY have them. Even then, there are those who would violate the law and deny you your "rights"... but at least you would likely have legal redress due to the LAWS which protect (and define) your "rights".

 

No need to trust me as I give great citations. You just spew opinion with little to no fact behind them. "Citizens United?" Please. What was unconstitutional about the Supreme Curt upholding the Right to Assemble and Freedom of Speech? The LEFT HATES that ruling because it essentially takes away long established PRILLIGES of Unions! LEFTISTS (mostly Democrats) can't win the game without cheating! Of course they will cry foul when their illegal and unfair advantage is taken away!

 

The problem with your approach is that the government is the only one trying to encroach on my rights.

Man made law does not define my rights. I have had my rights since birth, the same as every other human being, and "the government" is the only entity with the power and tyrannical will to effectively infringe on them.

And to answer your question, yes, I do think that without a legal definition there are millions of people that would agree that I have rights, as do they, and would not infringe on them. That's what real equality is all about. Let me ask you, is the fact that a government exists the only thing that stops you from raping/killing/stealing from your neighbor?

 

While I agree that human beings SHOULD have as many rights and liberties as reasonably allowable (that is, where we aren't stepping upon one another's necks)... I don't see any possible way that one can live within a civilization and NOT have some limitations upon their "rights" not defined/relegated by the consent of the of the governed.

If we were all little "gods" with our own separate and autonomous 'worlds'... nothing would be imposed upon or demanded of us. But the last time I checked, living in America meant being subject to its LAWS (not our own 'perception' of rights we might believe them to exist).

I also agree that the Constitution is a wonderful law; but I also know that it isn't perfect; and right along with that, our idea of "God" is also imperfect. So, I'm not buying what YOU think "God" has granted you as "rights"... I'm far more concerned about how the laws of this land define rights for "everyone".

 

"Everyone" (in the Republican dictionary) only includes those with piles of corporate cash. The rest are simply servants.

 

You are putting out the 'words' alright, but what you say is hardly real.

 

1. Dictionary definitions of words Democrats misuse are not real?

2. Democrats didn't threaten the Supreme Court in 1937 so they would stop ruling their "New Deal" unconstitutional?

3. You don't need a marriage license (government permissions) to exercise the "RIGHT" (privilege falsely mislabeled by the LEFT) of marriage?​

Oh, I assure you. Everything I say about the LEFT who are mostly Democrats is quite real! Trouble is it does not compute, as it is against your programming. Computers are programmed to reboot on error.

 

I respect the reality that you have an opinion, but by no means do I regard your opinions or conclusions as being THE 'truth'.

It's very accurate to say that we strongly disagree in our perspectives, at least.

I have an opinion that I'm holding; I'm fine with not always being 'perfectly' right; I'm human.

 

My "opinion" is that Democrats could not win a fair game so they must cheat. They would not have been allowed to build their MANDATORY Welfare State, or engaged in their MANDATORY Social Engineering Schemes without threatening the Supreme Court in 1937. They could not succeed if the Individual retained their unalienable Rights to say "NO!" to Democrats. If Social Security were voluntary only the really stupid would apply now daze. If people REALLY understood the economics of Obamacare very few would voluntarily sign up as Democrats will SCHEME to cover as much as possible and spread that COST to as many people as possible; Socialism at its finniest. Of course under Obamacare the GOVERNMENT (not you, oh no, YOU can't decide what YOU need and can afford) gets to decide the "minimum" amount a policy will cover, and I guarantee that minimum will be very high in both costs and benefits. Most really need health insurance for catastrophic care, and a little for mid level care. Democrats are demanding birth control coverage be included for all. That would like DEMANDING your car collision insurance provider "cover" oil changes, wiper blades, new tires, and windshield washer fluid. Sure they will cover it, but be prepared to pay the cost PLUS their profit. Ah, but that is the Democrat way. FORCE everyone to pay for what most don't use and charge them just as much as possible so We the People can never accumulate our own wealth. If a person were FREE and not forced to partake in mandatory Democrat schemes they would not need Democrats at all!