Gay marriage, Presidential responsibilities, guns, freedom of religion, freedom from religion & on and on the list goes when in the end, the Constitution is what we're talking about. The rights & responsibilities that come with it. The Bill of Rights afforded the people just to let the future know that these are untouchable. I think the best one is the 9th & 10th (they're tied)
IX says just because it's not herein the Bill of Rights doesn't mean it doesn't exist & X means if the Federal branch isn't expressly given a power, the states then have the option to enact or deny & if the states don't want to bother then the people have it, defacto.
Which leads us back to
Equal freedom for all citizens is not & has never been the case of law. Negroes were 3/5 of a person. Women couldn't vote. Criminals lose their rights. In fact, weren't white men supposed to be a land owner before voting, orginally (or was that just a proposal?).
We are attempting to make equality the stadard bearer. Everyday. As it should be. You pointed out later in that thread that the Constitution has wording on how to change it. We have changed it in the above mentioned cases. Negroes are now full people with all the rights & responsibilities that come with being more than a partial human & wimins can vote too if they get done with their hair apponitment in time. No problem with either.
I don't want to go back to gay marriage but it matters in this discussion of the Constitution. Why not make an amendment change. If government is going to get into religion by allowing, and more to the point, performing, marriages, shouldn't marriage rules & regulations be set up on the federal level? Right now, it's a state right (licenses, blood tests) that can be denied.
note* To everyone - just because I argue the legal ramifications of something doesn't mean I fully or even partially back it. Quit attacking me as the bad guy & look at what I'm writing
IX says just because it's not herein the Bill of Rights doesn't mean it doesn't exist & X means if the Federal branch isn't expressly given a power, the states then have the option to enact or deny & if the states don't want to bother then the people have it, defacto.
Which leads us back to
chcr said:
Equal freedom for all citizens is not & has never been the case of law. Negroes were 3/5 of a person. Women couldn't vote. Criminals lose their rights. In fact, weren't white men supposed to be a land owner before voting, orginally (or was that just a proposal?).
We are attempting to make equality the stadard bearer. Everyday. As it should be. You pointed out later in that thread that the Constitution has wording on how to change it. We have changed it in the above mentioned cases. Negroes are now full people with all the rights & responsibilities that come with being more than a partial human & wimins can vote too if they get done with their hair apponitment in time. No problem with either.
I don't want to go back to gay marriage but it matters in this discussion of the Constitution. Why not make an amendment change. If government is going to get into religion by allowing, and more to the point, performing, marriages, shouldn't marriage rules & regulations be set up on the federal level? Right now, it's a state right (licenses, blood tests) that can be denied.
note* To everyone - just because I argue the legal ramifications of something doesn't mean I fully or even partially back it. Quit attacking me as the bad guy & look at what I'm writing
Although I will grant you that all of the protests I hear are religious or homophobic.