Also, one thing you have to keep in mind is this: when lawyers and judges talk about what the constitution says, you need to take into account all the relevant case law. For example:
"The constitution says marriage is a fundamental right"
You won't find these exact words in the text of the constitution, but you will find them in about 6 US Supreme Court rulings. Whenever the constitution is vague the Supreme Court removes the question marks by issuing a ruling and the ruling becomes law.
You can't step on the spoken word of the people who voted to define marriage, and did so with a pure line of historical precedent going through the world for centuries, and say, "it says so in the Constitution," And if you do say it, what you mean to say is, "I will bring the primitives into a higher moral sphere." Where does it end? And, I add, Where did it begin?
@mons5555 "Stepping on the spoken word of the people" is EXACTLY what judges are hired to do when the "spoken word" is illegal. And guess who is given the power to determine if the "spoken word" is illegal--Judges--not me--NOT YOU--Judges. It's right there in the constitution.
So I'd really like you to read the ruling and tell me where is the flaw in the judge's logic--because "pure line of historical precedent ... for centuries" means little to a judge. They use laws and evidence.
Judges are not hired to re-invent the constitution, and then claim that they found that in the constitution. If every judge has the right to redesign the country based on some idealism, the judge becomes a dictator. That is surely not in the constitution.
@mons5555 Jews have the right to equality and to marriage, like the gays do. But you won't find the word "Jew" in the constitution. Because the constitution does not mention Jews, do you think Jews don't have the right to equality to gentiles under the law?
You are ignorant of American law, and should not profess your lack of understanding. Don't present yourself with books behind you, you don't read the legal opinions that you speak about.
This guy didn't need to fumble around the Constitution searching for the relevant law. The relevant portions of the constitution are right in the opinions themselves. He should do a little study before making a video! It would have saved him time. He should read Log Cabin Republicans v. Schwarzenegger. It is explained there. Read, study, learn.
You claim that the judges who ruled something unconstitutional quote the constitution. I ask again, where does it say in the constitution that gays may marry. It does say that people have equal rights in voting and other issues, but the people have the right to define marriage, not some judge who disagrees with all of the lawyers who voted to deny gays marriage.
You are unwelcoming to strangers. And we all know what God thinks of that. You see, gay spouses are not welcomed as American citizens. Follow Torah, Rabbi.
We love a stranger who is from a different culture but who appreciates proper values. We don't appreciate someone who fights family because he is a stranger.
@mons5555 You cannot choose which values you want to elevate, and which you wish to suppress. All strangers should be shown welcome. And it is most unwelcoming to refuse citizenship to the spouses of gay and lesbian people. You and I both know the true sin of Sodom and Gomorrah. Torah, Rabbi.
There are quite a few things you will not find in the constitution; including Marriage and God.
Saying that gay marriage doesn't appear in the Constitution is, of course, true. However, the Constitution also has nothing to say about Marriage in general.
Finally, I am unaware of a judge who has specifically said that "gay marriage is in the Constitution". If you can provide a quote that states this, then I stand corrected. Whether it's 'implied' or 'can be translated' does not count.
The Constitution clearly states, in the Tenth Amendment, that all things not enumerated in the articles or amendments of the constitution belong to the states and the people, and are not to be ruled on by the Federal government. Thus, family issues are left to the states and the people, and are not the purview of the Federal government, including the Federal judiciary.
Recently, federal judges have ruled against the state of California regarding gay marriage, and the military regarding gays.
When a judge says that a law passed by the people is unconstitutional, what does that mean? It means the constitution forbids this law. Where does the constitution even talk about marriage, certainly gay marriage?
Rabbi, have you actually read the ruling? You can read it by going to scribd (dot) com and search for
California-Prop-8-Ruling-August-2010
It's actually readable and should make the ruling pretty clear. If you are truly looking for answers, this would be a good place to begin.
ecsciguy79 1 year ago
Also, one thing you have to keep in mind is this: when lawyers and judges talk about what the constitution says, you need to take into account all the relevant case law. For example:
"The constitution says marriage is a fundamental right"
You won't find these exact words in the text of the constitution, but you will find them in about 6 US Supreme Court rulings. Whenever the constitution is vague the Supreme Court removes the question marks by issuing a ruling and the ruling becomes law.
ecsciguy79 1 year ago
So most people will say:
"The constitution says marriage is a fundamental right"
even when they _technically_ mean to say:
"The Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution to say marriage is a fundamental right"
ecsciguy79 1 year ago
You can't step on the spoken word of the people who voted to define marriage, and did so with a pure line of historical precedent going through the world for centuries, and say, "it says so in the Constitution," And if you do say it, what you mean to say is, "I will bring the primitives into a higher moral sphere." Where does it end? And, I add, Where did it begin?
mons5555 1 year ago
@mons5555 "Stepping on the spoken word of the people" is EXACTLY what judges are hired to do when the "spoken word" is illegal. And guess who is given the power to determine if the "spoken word" is illegal--Judges--not me--NOT YOU--Judges. It's right there in the constitution.
So I'd really like you to read the ruling and tell me where is the flaw in the judge's logic--because "pure line of historical precedent ... for centuries" means little to a judge. They use laws and evidence.
ecsciguy79 1 year ago
Judges are not hired to re-invent the constitution, and then claim that they found that in the constitution. If every judge has the right to redesign the country based on some idealism, the judge becomes a dictator. That is surely not in the constitution.
mons5555 1 year ago
@mons5555 Jews have the right to equality and to marriage, like the gays do. But you won't find the word "Jew" in the constitution. Because the constitution does not mention Jews, do you think Jews don't have the right to equality to gentiles under the law?
You are ignorant of American law, and should not profess your lack of understanding. Don't present yourself with books behind you, you don't read the legal opinions that you speak about.
Your diatribe is ignorant profanity.
DarwinianEvolution1 1 year ago
This guy didn't need to fumble around the Constitution searching for the relevant law. The relevant portions of the constitution are right in the opinions themselves. He should do a little study before making a video! It would have saved him time. He should read Log Cabin Republicans v. Schwarzenegger. It is explained there. Read, study, learn.
DarwinianEvolution1 1 year ago 2
You claim that the judges who ruled something unconstitutional quote the constitution. I ask again, where does it say in the constitution that gays may marry. It does say that people have equal rights in voting and other issues, but the people have the right to define marriage, not some judge who disagrees with all of the lawyers who voted to deny gays marriage.
mons5555 1 year ago
@mons5555 The areas of the Constitution you are searching for are in the opinions. READ THEM!
DarwinianEvolution1 1 year ago
You are unwelcoming to strangers. And we all know what God thinks of that. You see, gay spouses are not welcomed as American citizens. Follow Torah, Rabbi.
nicksum29 1 year ago
We love a stranger who is from a different culture but who appreciates proper values. We don't appreciate someone who fights family because he is a stranger.
mons5555 1 year ago
@mons5555 You cannot choose which values you want to elevate, and which you wish to suppress. All strangers should be shown welcome. And it is most unwelcoming to refuse citizenship to the spouses of gay and lesbian people. You and I both know the true sin of Sodom and Gomorrah. Torah, Rabbi.
nicksum29 1 year ago
There are quite a few things you will not find in the constitution; including Marriage and God.
Saying that gay marriage doesn't appear in the Constitution is, of course, true. However, the Constitution also has nothing to say about Marriage in general.
Finally, I am unaware of a judge who has specifically said that "gay marriage is in the Constitution". If you can provide a quote that states this, then I stand corrected. Whether it's 'implied' or 'can be translated' does not count.
CloserToReason1 1 year ago
The Constitution clearly states, in the Tenth Amendment, that all things not enumerated in the articles or amendments of the constitution belong to the states and the people, and are not to be ruled on by the Federal government. Thus, family issues are left to the states and the people, and are not the purview of the Federal government, including the Federal judiciary.
Recently, federal judges have ruled against the state of California regarding gay marriage, and the military regarding gays.
mons5555 1 year ago
@CloserToReason1 Who knows? Maybe the judges themselves are Gays and transvestite? :)
SkyPuba 1 year ago
When a judge says that a law passed by the people is unconstitutional, what does that mean? It means the constitution forbids this law. Where does the constitution even talk about marriage, certainly gay marriage?
mons5555 1 year ago