The oxymoron of "same-sex" marriage, even if it had some rational meaning--which it does not, as the whole function of marriage has always been to sanctify the mating of man & woman;--does not involve anything delegated to the Federal Government in the Constitution; and outside the District of Columbia and the Federal territories, the very subject of marriage is not in any sense within the Federal purview.
The reasoning together, that I refer to, involves the reasoning process. Those advocating the abomination that you denounce, have not been reasoning with anyone. They have been pontificating--as frankly you are pontificating, even though I agree with you that the Leftist position is the scourge that you denounce;--rather than being forced to actually reason.
My point is that the "same sex" marriage oxymoron will simply not bear reasoned analysis. It bears no rational relationship to the immemorial purpose or function of marriage.
[[Where in the Constitution is there any authority to alter the moral values of any State?]]
You misunderstand- That is not what I was implying- The moral values valued by our founders are what constituted state’s rights to assert moral values when determining things like marriage laws- marriage laws have always been based o n the universal moral truth that marriage is between a man and woman
Your original astatement wasn’t about the federal government delegating- but whether our federal govnermkent was basedo n moral laws or not- you implied the federal laws should not include moral precepts- that is what I was replying to, not whether states have a right to (Or SHOULD have a right to) regulate marriage laws-
Here’s your oringianl statement
[[Frankly, if more people would simply read our foundational documents in context, it would be very clear that social values & moral issues were never supposed to involve the Federal Government. ]]
and that just isn’t true- social values and moral issues are protected by our constitution (or at least they were before the corrupt SC decision)
[[Those advocating the abomination that you denounce, have not been reasoning with anyone.]]
Again you post was not clear- it looked like you were telling people of morals we needed to reason with the other side- not that the other side refused ot reason- You are correct, they are no longer just refusing to reason- they are now demanding our government stop reasoning, and stop obeying the LAW, in order to trample our goventrent protected rights to freedom of religion
[[My point is that the “same sex” marriage oxymoron will simply not bear reasoned analysis. It bears no rational relationship to the immemorial purpose or function of marriage.]]
That is correct- but your original post was confusing to say the least- you misstated, and I misunderstood some issues- hence the confusion