tpaine: The imposition on the nation of the decision of a few liberal activist judges. Not constitutional.
I didn't write that line. You're quite crazy, & lying, to try to tag it as mine.
McKinley: Prevent the judges from doing so by using the methods delineated in article V. Constitutional.
Not needed. Those judges 'rulings' are unconstitutional and can be ignored.
tpaine: Marriage should be whoever wants to be married. Not conservative.
I didn't write that line. You're crazy, & lying to tag it as mine.
McKinley: Marriage should be between a man and a woman, just like it has always been. Conservative.
My position also, as per my last post.
We have no constitutional "standards" for marriage, nor do we need any.. - Marriage should be between a man and a woman, just like it has always been.
We didn't before. We do now, thanks to some judges in Massachusettes.
Those judges are as crazy as you. they want unconstitutional changes.
You are simply ranting about what you imagine I want.
Nope. You are opposing a constitutional amendment,
Yep, an unneeded amendment that gives government power in an area reserved to the people.
which means you want the status quo. The status quo right now is that liberal activist judges in one state can impose on the entire nation a revised standard of marriage.
Hype. They don't have that power, & never have had. You've been duped, and are following big brothers line that we must change the constitution in order to 'save' it. -- Not true, we must change our political system to save the constitution..
That is not constitutional, but the paragon of constitutional conservatism is fine with this because it suits his whims of not having any standards for marriage, a position which is not conservative.
Government 'standards' for religious ceremonies like marriage are a perversion of our principles of individual liberty. Just as is said in the article:
"The very function of Constitution and court is to put individual liberties beyond the reach of both congressional majorities and popular clamor," commented Mr. Cox.
Does this not get to the nub of the controversy -- the protection of minorities against majority rule?
A suppression of minority rights by the majorities of the moment is precisely what the Constitution -- and judicial review -- is meant to limit. Some militant groups in effect want to force all Americans into accepting a rigid set of beliefs on abortion, school prayer, and other social issues ---
I didn't write that line. You're quite crazy, & lying, to try to tag it as mine.Now that would be a personal attack. A rather lame one, but at least you are trying.
There are two options. Either an amendment, or the imposition on the nation of the decision of a few liberal activist judges.
It is an either/or.
You oppose an amendment, and without the amendment you get that imposition.
You did not write the line, but it flows directly from the stance you are taken.