SCOTUS Arguments on SSM Case Today

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by n david

Correct, I should have said the states.

I knew what you meant.

[Liteweight47]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

By "the people" he is referring to the 10th Amendment, i.e., state's rights.

How old are you anyway?

This many....

And I know what he means in regards to states rights. Personally I was in favor many years ago of the Federal Marriage Amendment that would have dealt with this once and for all. Granted I don't think it ever had a flying chance, but the reality is even if the states are left up to "decide" eventually we're going to have the same results. Same Sex Marriage is becoming more and more "socially acceptable". Every state will ultimately eventually comply. Of course making this a states rights issue does buy conservatives some time, and it will be easier for the left to begin the process of persecuting those who don't fit into their mold... but we're still ultimately going to loose this culture war, regardless. If it's not now it will be in the next generation. The homosexual agenda is so far-reaching, all we can do at this point is "buy-time".

Just get ready for REAL "prison ministry" boys, from the inside....

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Liteweight47

This many....

And I know what he means in regards to states rights. Personally I was in favor many years ago of the Federal Marriage Amendment that would have dealt with this once and for all. Granted I don't think it ever had a flying chance, but the reality is even if the states are left up to "decide" eventually we're going to have the same results. Same Sex Marriage is becoming more and more "socially acceptable". Every state will ultimately eventually comply. Of course making this a states rights issue does buy conservatives some time, and it will be easier for the left to begin the process of persecuting those who don't fit into their mold... but we're still ultimately going to loose this culture war, regardless. If it's not now it will be in the next generation. The homosexual agenda is so far-reaching, all we can do at this point is "buy-time".

Just get ready for REAL "prison ministry" boys, from the inside....

I agree that it is becoming more socially acceptable. However, you cannot throw out the 10th Amendment based on that argument.

It is still - "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

[Aquila]

The state's involvement in what should be a private contract/covenant is at the heart of the problem.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Aquila

The state's involvement in what should be a private contract/covenant is at the heart of the problem.

Even though marriage is about relationship, there are too many mutual civil and legal matters tied up in marriage to have that happen - children, property, finances, etc.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Aquila

The state's involvement in what should be a private contract/covenant is at the heart of the problem.

State will always be involved.

There's other people and property involved.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Liteweight47

This many....

And I know what he means in regards to states rights. Personally I was in favor many years ago of the Federal Marriage Amendment that would have dealt with this once and for all. Granted I don't think it ever had a flying chance, but the reality is even if the states are left up to "decide" eventually we're going to have the same results. Same Sex Marriage is becoming more and more "socially acceptable". Every state will ultimately eventually comply. Of course making this a states rights issue does buy conservatives some time, and it will be easier for the left to begin the process of persecuting those who don't fit into their mold... but we're still ultimately going to loose this culture war, regardless. If it's not now it will be in the next generation. The homosexual agenda is so far-reaching, all we can do at this point is "buy-time".

Just get ready for REAL "prison ministry" boys, from the inside....

By the original intent of the Framers, the States already have the right to decide. This is not the Federal Courts' jurisdiction at all.

And how is 1% of the population wielding so much power?

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I agree that it is becoming more socially acceptable. However, you cannot throw out the 10th Amendment based on that argument.

It is still - "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

And the term "We the people", according to James Madison, means "the people as composing thirteen sovereignties" (now 50), not "the people as composing one aggregate nation". There is no "American people" in an aggregate sense.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Originalist

And the term "We the people", according to James Madison, means "the people as composing thirteen sovereignties" (now 50), not "the people as composing one aggregate nation". There is no "American people" in an aggregate sense.

Agreed! Good point and reference!

[Jito463]

On the topic of the Constitution, Mark Levin made a great point some time back about the Senate.

Section 3

1: The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof,3 for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

The Senate seats were supposed to be appointed by the state's legislature, to represent the will of the states. Now, however, senators are elected by vote, same as representatives (which were intended to reflect/represent the will of the people). This is a major problem, as it means senators are really no different than representatives.

I think this is another major reason we have such a dysfunctional government. Rather than one house representing the people, and another representing the states, both are representing the people with no representation for the states.