Sure, so the authority is relegated to the states and/or the people, as per the Tenth Amendment.
And since 1868, the States have been obliged to refrain from making "any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States". So, even using your supposition that marriage isn't a right, it IS a privilege, and the 14th Amendment clearly states, the States many NOT abridge (deprive) anyone of their privileges, including marriage.
Once again, your entire argument is predicated on a warped reading of the 14th Amendment -- which requires that states recognize rights enumerated in the Constitution. One such right is the right of states to legislate on things the federal government is not entitled to legislate on, like marriage. I do not know why you don't get this.
Because it's not supported by the Constitution, THAT'S why. The 14th TRUMPS the States 10th amendment right to "...abridge anyone of their privileges...". The 14th specifically demands that "nor shall any State...deny to
any person within its jurisdiction the
equal protection of the laws". Please note the words "ANY PERSON". If you are going to allow ANYONE the Right to marry in your State, you must allow EVERYONE the Right to marry. You may not discriminate against blacks by telling them that they may not marry whomever they chose simply based on race, and you may not discriminate against homosexuals by telling them that they may not marry whomever they choose based on sexual orientation.
You cannot even fulfill the relatively simple task of listing specifically what states could legislate on under your scheme, and then you get frazzled when I decline to take you seriously? Come on now.
It was a Red Herring, and I'm not interested in playing that silly game. Frankly, the list of things that HAVE been legislated upon, at the federal, state, and local level, that are extra-constitutional is too long to begin to enumerate, so I simplified it for you.
Once again -- no one has ever taken your interpretation of the 14th Amendment seriously, because a plain reading of the 14th Amendment suggests there is no basis to do so. If we accepted the argument that states cannot legislate on anything the federal gov't cannot legislate on, and the federal gov't is entitled to legislate largely on areas in which it is the sole competent legislative authority (for instance, national defense), then states are more or less powerless, no?
Then I would suggest you attend a few Constitutional Law classes in a major University, and you'll see a LOT of people, including Judges (former and current) and Professors (and no, not just the liberal ones either) who have the same interpretation that I do. In fact, it was while auditing Con Law classes that I gained a much deeper respect for, and understanding of, the Constitution than most non-lawyers can grasp.
Hello? There is zero jurisprudence supporting your contention. How am I to go about disproving a negative, hm?
Your saying it doesn't make it true, which is why I pointed out that you'd made a circular argument. You claim that my position is highly unfounded, therefore it should be EASY for you to establish precedent that supports your allegation. There is AMPLE precedent in support of mine, you simply choose to ignore it.
The Constitution does not address abortion either, so using your HIGHLY FLAWED logic, the States should be able to legislate on it as they see fit, yet in 1973 SCOTUS determined that the State of Texas did NOT have the Right to prohibit a woman from having an abortion. The Constitution does not address any government educational Establishment so using your HIGHLY FLAWED logic, the States should be able to legislate on it as they see fit, yet in 1954, and again in 1958 SCOTUS ruled that little black children HAD to be allowed into an "all white school". The Constitution doesn't say anything about agriculture, so using your HIGHLY FLAWED logic, the States should be able to legislate on it as they see fit, yet it is firmly established law that ALL growers in the United States must pass FDA testing and abide by FDA regulations. As I said, my list is long, and distinguished and you have yet to present anything except lame rhetoric.
And at any rate, when has the burden of proof ever fallen on the defendant, hm?
AH, but you are acting as the prosecution. It is YOU who is denying their Rights, therefore it is YOU who must present sufficient Constitutional ground for such a denial, and you have failed to do so.
Sure it is. But it does not extend to include whoever or whatever you want.
To whomever, yes it does, to whatever, no it doesn't (unless you can get your sheep, or whatever else you want to marry, to legibly sign the license, and say the vows, in plain English, which unless you're planning on marrying Mr. Ed, pretty much renders that silly point MOOT.)
In the same vein, I have a right to practice medicine. But I don't have a right to practice medicine I am not qualified to practice, now do I?
Yet another Red Herring. The practice of medicine, in the modern sense, is not now, nor has it ever been a "basic human right", HOWEVER, the application of basic first aid IS covered by that "basic human right".
And one day, I will. But that does not mean the Constitution entitles me to it just because I say so and no can prove otherwise.
Uh, I was being nice there, but since you missed that one too, the Constitution doesn't APPLY TO MARS!! Ergo, if you CAN take it, it's YOURS.
Then I suppose the roles don't actually exist, huh?
Of course the roles exist, but they are not gender specific in the original language since the word "husband" is 13th century English which means "manager" or "steward". How many "stay at home Dads" are there today? How many women are the real "bread winners" in their families? If we are to use the original meaning of the word "husband", then the "stay at home Dad" is the wife, and the "bread winning" woman is the husband.
Then explain how two men can reasonably be expected to bear children.
The same way barren women do it, through a surrogate. Don't you ever watch the Science Channel?
Not much of an answer, but I really didn't expect one.
Clearly, you don't know what the words "bigot" or "prejudice" mean, either.
My disapproval of "homosexual marriage" does not conflate with disapproval of homosexuals.
What surprises me is that you post stuff like this and then accuse
others of posting strawman arguments.
I know PRECISELY what they mean, and you've exhibited EACH AND EVERY CHARACTERISTIC of both. You've failed repeatedly to present even one logical, cogent, or even Constitutional basis for your bias, you've steadfastly stood by your belief, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and yet you still persist in trying to deny other human beings of their GOD GIVEN RIGHTS. If that's not bigoted and prejudiced, I'd be hard pressed to define them.
Oh, and one other thing before I forget; it took you nearly a WEEK to come up with this weak garbage?
