The New Constitution Created by Activist Judges

Gay Marriage is not in the constitution, so why do Federal judges insist that it is?

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• gay marriage
• constitutional rights
• states rights
• anger at government

[nicksum29]

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.

[mons5555]

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]

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.

[ecsciguy79]

@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.

[mons5555]

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?

[ecsciguy79]

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]

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]

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.

[nicksum29]

@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.

[mons5555]

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]

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?