Next Big Debate, Obergefell v. Hodges, Gay Marriage

[Beckie]

But that's what I am also saying. Some things that people claim as freedoms are not spelled out as freedoms inside the written constitution. They include gay marriage, but also include eating shellfish, divorce, contraception, alcohol consumption and television.

So, what logic is there, according only to the written document upon which the US polity claims its rights, to ban any of the things that are not expressly prohibited in the constitution?

This is a genuine question that people will ask us. So how do we answer?

Because history tells us it was written to a 'christian nation' . Things like marriage being a man and woman was as old as history. Maybe not Christian like every denomination would want but it and the Declaration of Independence are Bible based .

 

[Klement]

it prohibits the forced indoctrination of the sexual preference to all against one's conscience

Individualistically and democratically, but not authoritatively. Essentially, it seems to me that it comes down to state votes.

 

[Klement]

Because history tells us it was written to a 'christian nation' . Things like marriage being a man and woman was as old as history. Maybe not Christian like every denomination would want but it and the Declaration of Independence are Bible based .

Right, but it doesn't say that in the constitution. Again, this is the document that people are using to found their legal and political footing on. And it doesn't mention religious preference. At all.

 

[Beckie]

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume, among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That, whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

 

[Beckie]

Right, but it doesn't say that in the constitution. Again, this is the document that people are using to found their legal and political footing on. And it doesn't mention religious preference. At all.

correct

 

[CS1]

There are only two genders, yes. Having sex with children is wrong, yes. And I also refuse to call anyone a pronoun.

But you're missing my point. People are using the constitution to ban gay marriage even when the Constitution doesn't mention it. The Bible is not the document upon which American society bases its polity and law; the constitution of the US is.

The Constitution did not mention Nuclear war, terrorism, or gang bangers, YET; moral-minded people can see and know this is not the right thing to do. The action brings its own merits. Only those with a perverted mindset would not agree. IF the Document had to say every single thing that was wrong, Black would still be slaves in America. That is why John Adams's statement is authoritative because it is true.

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other"

 

[Klement]

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume, among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That, whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Thank you again!
So essentially states and groups will decide their will for themselves and go their separate ways if necessary.

That seems democratic and fair.

 

[Klement]

The Constitution did not mention Nuclear war, terrorism, or gang bangers, YET; moral-minded people can see and know this is not the right thing to do. The action brings its own merits. Only those with a perverted mindset would not agree. IF the Document had to say every single thing that was wrong, Black would still be slaves in America. That is why John Adams's statement is authoritative because it is true.

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other"

I think the greater point of the constitution, from reading some of it, seems to be self determination even if it means a national split. The quote that you quote again is not in the constitution. But self determinate rights are.

So I will end my investigation there.

 

[Beckie]

Christian people sent their kids to public corrupt schools. We today are reaping that carelessness . We trusted people . Scriptures do no tell us to send the kids it tell us to train them up.

 

[CS1]

Individualistically and democratically, but not authoritatively. Essentially, it seems to me that it comes down to state votes.

we have rights that a state cannot take away itis, not majority rules we are A REPUBLIC where I have Individual rights.

 

[CS1]

I think the greater point of the constitution, from reading some of it, seems to be self determination even if it means a national split.

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other"

 

[Beckie]

I think the greater point of the constitution, from reading some of it, seems to be self determination even if it means a national split.

I believe the idea was to avoid a split sorta like on these points we agree so lets get along

 

[Bluesproverb]

So why is the government getting involved in marriage at all?

😊You might enjoy this old Heritage Foundation article as an answer.

Why Is Government in the Marriage Business?

Dec 12th, 2012

 

[Klement]

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other"

Not in the constitution, mate. Seriously. It's not there.

 

[CS1]

😊You might enjoy this old Heritage Foundation article as an answer.

Why Is Government in the Marriage Business?

Dec 12th, 2012

Marriage ensures the nations continues

 

[Beckie]

Not in the constitution, mate. Seriously. It's not there.

He never said it was.

 

[Klement]

I believe the idea was to avoid a split sorta like on these points we agree so lets get along

Well, in all my experience in conflicted countries (and I've travelled a lot) I've never seen one with a schism as large as the US that didn't have some kind of nationalist movement within it.

As you wrote, the constitution states mankind within US constitutional law is right and moral to bring its grievances against a government it doesn't give authority to, and to split away and form its own.

This is a noble position and may be the only solution to America's current issues.

(Texas will certainly fare better than Washington this time though)

 

[CS1]

Not in the constitution, mate. Seriously. It's not there.

Maybe not in yours. Seriously. I never said the words I quoted of John Adams were in the US Constitution. The context of the statement is in the very statement.

 

[Klement]

Marriage ensures the nations continues

This is actually a good point, if I may expand. Population is an issue in the US, as is divorce, because it destroys economic stability (mostly for men) and creates a mass housing issue.

60% divorces means huge numbers of men homeless or looking for new homes.

 

[Beckie]

There is more to the building of America then the the Declaration of Independence an the Constitution