XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.usa, alt.politics.usa.constitution   
   XPost: alt.tv.oreilly-factor, rec.arts.tv.news.oreilly-factor   
   From: crwlrjeff@yahoo.com   
      
   "Josh Rosenbluth"  wrote in message   
   news:mnmf84$q87$1@dont-email.me...   
   > On 7/9/2015 12:03 PM, Jeff Strickland wrote:   
   >>   
   >> "Josh Rosenbluth"  wrote in message   
   >> news:mnk357$gck$3@dont-email.me...   
   >>> On 7/8/2015 1:46 PM, Jeff Strickland wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>> When a majority vote that marriage shall be between one man and one   
   >>>> woman, and do so as an amendment to the constitution, then that vote is   
   >>>> supreme to any law.   
   >>>   
   >>> It isn't supreme to the federal Constitution.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> Now you are changing the subject.   
   >>   
   >> Assume for a moment that there was an amendment to the US Constitution   
   >> that defined marriage as one man and one woman, that amendment would be   
   >> supreme to the court.   
   >>   
   >> A state supreme court cannot, should not be able to, overturn a state   
   >> constitutional amendment. The amendment is the constitution. Marriage is   
   >> a states right issue, not a federal one.   
   >   
   > Under your assumption, that the federal constitution defined marriage to   
   > exclude gay couples, then there would be no need for any state   
   > constitutional amendments doing likewise.   
   >   
      
   Be that as it may be, we have state courts that overturned state   
   constitutional amendments, and at least one state that did not even bother   
   to defend its amendment in a state court. This is wrong. That is, it should   
   not happen this way.   
      
   The historical record is that homosexuality was unacceptable to pretty much   
   everyone, therefore no body thought to exclude define marriage as only   
   between one man and one woman. Actually, several states had the forethought   
   to do precisely that, but most did not. Homosexuality is a deviant behavior   
   that does not warrant marriage consideration, as a historical matter. Only   
   recently has it come to a head, no pun intended. You tend to look at, or I   
   hear you speaking as though, something is new that merits renewed   
   consideration. Nothing is new, no new consideration need be made.   
   Homosexuality is an abhorent and wholly unnatural behavior, it is in no way   
   mainstream.   
      
   A few oddballs accept it, and fewer still promote it, and now we have a huge   
   social upheaval to include less than 2% of the population in a social   
   convention where the oddballs behave in an unnatural way. Homosexual sex is   
   purely recreational, there is no advancement of the human condition through   
   homosexual acts.   
      
      
   > If on the other hand, the federal constitution has no such amendment,   
   > state courts are still bound by the federal constitution as the supreme   
   > law of the land when judging state constitutional amendments.  Thus, a   
   > state court must rule against such an amendment.   
      
      
   Oddly, the 10th amendment specifically states that if the federal   
   constitution does not address a topic, then that topic is the sole purview   
   of the states to address. The recent ruling is one where the federal   
   constitution does not stake a claim, therefore the ruling rendered is a   
   precedent to stifle all claims of states rights going forward.   
      
   The unintended consequences will be huge, and will be unknown for years. Or,   
   they might be apparent tomorrow.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)