HRC: Same Sex Marriage Should be a Constitutional Right

[AuH20]

Codifying Sexuality into the Constitution? What could possibly go wrong?

http://www.infowars.com/hillary-clinton-same-sex-marriage-should-be-a-constitutional-right/

In an apparent shift from comments last summer, Hillary Clinton is urging the Supreme Court to rule to allow same-sex couples nationwide to marry, calling it a “constitutional right.”

In a statement reported in the Washington Blade and confirmed to NBC News, campaign spokesperson Adrienne Elrod said: “Hillary Clinton supports marriage equality and hopes the Supreme Court will come down on the side of same-sex couples being guaranteed that constitutional right.”

That seems to be a shift for Clinton, who made headlines in June of last year for appearing to suggest in a contentious interview with NPR that she believes the issue of same-sex marriage is best handled on a state-by-state basis.

In that interview, Clinton conceded that, like the president, she had not supported gay marriage during her previous presidential run.

But, she added, “just because you’re a politician, doesn’t mean you’re not a thinking human being. And you gather information. You think through positions. You’re not 100 percent set – thank goodness – you’re constantly reevaluating where you stand. That was true for me.”

 

[Ronin Truth]

Can we add in one for cannibalism too?

 

[Ronin Truth]

How about a right to boink the Whitehouse interns?

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Hillary thinks that people have a 'right' to demand that governments exercise power above God.

Sadly, nearly everyone on both the the left and the right is fine with governments exercising authorities above God. If it's not one thing it's another, but on both sides of the aisle, there is exhibited a design to reduce not only us, but also our God, under despotism. Of course, He will not be mocked, but that is a discussion for another subforum.

Giving a government the Moral Authority rather than God has led to a nation where the people are as moral as those whom they elect. This has resulted in a 'feedback loop' and a downward spiral, where once tapping a single hotel room led to a man being driven from the Presidency, until now we are tapping every living soul in a chaos of corruption and intrigue on every matter in Washington, and nobody cares - except the few people being driven insane by the doublethink madness that has become America today.

The Christian Right is just as guilty as are the godless heathens in doing this, because where the latter recognize no god, the former came to idolize the State in place of God, as evidenced by their tasking the State to do what they seem to believe God can not. This is the danger when we allow governments to regulate faith.

501(c)3 aka the Johnson Amendment, is the government regulation of faith. America has been in a downward spiral ever since Lyndon Johnson. It is in the last 12 years that this spiral is nearing freefall. America's morality is not failing because we are debating whether to recognize gay marriage, America's morality is failing because we have decided that government should hold authority over marriage rather than God.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

The Christian Right is just as guilty as are the godless heathens in doing this,

Phrased this way to illustrate polar extremes, not to denigrate those who hold different ontologies. utopia/dystopia neither exists in reality, but serve to illustrate extremes.

America has been in a downward spiral ever since Lyndon Johnson. It is in the last 12 years that this spiral is nearing freefall.

Really, excepting a few valiant attempts to climb back into the sky, we've been losing altitude since Woodrow Wilson in 1913. Johnson and his Great Society pitched us into a spiral, and Bush-Obama has brought us to the brink of auguring in.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Hillary thinks that people have a 'right' to demand that governments exercise power above God.

Sadly, nearly everyone on both the the left and the right is fine with governments exercising authorities above God. If it's not one thing it's another, but on both sides of the aisle, there is exhibited a design to reduce not only us, but also our God, under despotism. Of course, He will not be mocked, but that is a discussion for another subforum.

Giving a government the Moral Authority rather than God has led to a nation where the people are as moral as those whom they elect. This has resulted in a 'feedback loop' and a downward spiral, where once tapping a single hotel room led to a man being driven from the Presidency, until now we are tapping every living soul in a chaos of corruption and intrigue on every matter in Washington, and nobody cares - except the few people being driven insane by the doublethink madness that has become America today.

The Christian Right is just as guilty as are the godless heathens in doing this, because where the latter recognize no god, the former came to idolize the State in place of God, as evidenced by their tasking the State to do what they seem to believe God can not. This is the danger when we allow governments to regulate faith.

501(c)3 aka the Johnson Amendment, is the government regulation of faith. America has been in a downward spiral ever since Lyndon Johnson. It is in the last 12 years that this spiral is nearing freefall. America's morality is not failing because we are debating whether to recognize gay marriage, America's morality is failing because we have decided that government should hold authority over marriage rather than God.

You might not agree with them, but there's a difference between most Republicans and most theonomists in their regard.

Theonomists want to restructure society in terms of Christ being king. There are different views regarding how to do this, but most support limited government, yet one that explicitly acknowledges Jesus as Lord.

By contrast, Republicans typically just support idolatry of the State. They put a "Christian" dressing on it, but its very different.

 

[otherone]

 

[Sam I am]

14th amendment section 1 from wikipedia:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Suppose Man A wants to marry Woman B.
Also suppose that Woman A also wants to marry Woman B.

If Man A is allowed to marry Woman B but Woman A is not, than the law applies differently to Man A than it applies to Woman A. That would be in violation of the 14th amendment.

 

[DFF]

The founders didn't view homosexuality in the most favorable light - to put it mildly.

So to view this as a "constitutional right" is just a tad bit on the absurd side of things.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

14th amendment section 1 from wikipedia:

Suppose Man A wants to marry Woman B.
Also suppose that Woman A also wants to marry Woman B.

If Man A is allowed to marry Woman B but Woman A is not, than the law applies differently to Man A than it applies to Woman A. That would be in violation of the 14th amendment.

Nothing in the 14th Amendment guarantees a right to marry, be it heterosexual or homosexual, making the question of what is or is not allowed state to state moot. At the time of the amendment's passage, marriage itself was understood to be a private institution or sectarian ritual, much like baptism or communion, thus not a matter of law.

And the 14th amendment protects individual rights, not the privilege claims of a group that they need to be treated as a protected class. Gay advocates want a government privilege (a government marriage license) extended to them as a group as if it was an inalienable right, based on collectivist claims of being a civil rights category (which is itself disputed, since half of us do not agree they are born that way).

 

[mad cow]

Suppose Man A wants to marry Woman B.
Also suppose that Woman A also wants to marry Woman B.

Then they should arm wrestle for her.

 

[Danke]

14th amendment section 1 from wikipedia:



Suppose Man A wants to marry Woman B.
Also suppose that Woman A also wants to marry Woman B.

If Man A is allowed to marry Woman B but Woman A is not, than the law applies differently to Man A than it applies to Woman A. That would be in violation of the 14th amendment.

I think Man A should marry both Woman A and Woman B.

 

[ChristianAnarchist]

Of course the whole problem with this idea is that "marriage" should have nothing to do with "government". Marriage is a contract. Any consulting adults can enter into a contract if they like. Government goons have no power to stop two (or more) people from entering into contract. 100 years ago the "marriage license" was almost non-existent. Most "marriages" were entries in the family Bible in front of a minister of some sort. Nothing to do with "government"...

 

[Sola_Fide]

Of course the whole problem with this idea is that "marriage" should have nothing to do with "government". Marriage is a contract. Any consulting adults can enter into a contract if they like. Government goons have no power to stop two (or more) people from entering into contract. 100 years ago the "marriage license" was almost non-existent. Most "marriages" were entries in the family Bible in front of a minister of some sort. Nothing to do with "government"...

+rep

 

[Vanguard101]

Should? It is? Even if it isn't, it's a natural right.

 

[Sola_Fide]

The founders didn't view homosexuality in the most favorable light - to put it mildly.

So to view this as a "constitutional right" is just a tad bit on the absurd side of things.

Boobus has no concept of "rights" so the argument that perverted sexuality is a new civil right goes over very well with them.

 

[William Tell]

I think Man A should marry both Woman A and Woman B.

^^^

 

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

The founders didn't view homosexuality in the most favorable light - to put it mildly.

So to view this as a "constitutional right" is just a tad bit on the absurd side of things.

The progressive view of the Constitution has naught to do with anything the Founders thought. Living document and all that BS.

I'm also totally unsurprised by Rodham's flip flop. The Clintons have no real convictions or scruples. Never have, never will.

 

[Aspie Minarcho-Capitalist]

"Same Sex Marriage" is not and should not be a constitutional human right, but only grandiose entitlements in the minds of bleeding heart liberaltarians, so-called "freethinking" group-think progressives and the opprobrious beltway "libertarian" collectivist types. It's an irreverent infringement of voluntary association towards the propertarian values of the the church and the administrators individual right to dictate what constitutes to the sanctity of marriage. Get the government out of it and make it an individual decision, or there will be no acknowledgement of gay marriage - I'm an agnostic atheist by the way.

 

[Ronin Truth]

Those A B marriages seldom work out.