Quote:

first of all the 14th amendment is illegal and was never properly ratified by the states of course that does not matter to all you entitlist's out there(every united states citizen) the 14th amendment took away our constitutional rights and replaced them with priviledges and immunities which can be taken away (rights by thier very nature are a part of being human and as such are not negotiable in court unless you try or succeed in taking anothers rights away(murder, the right to live. theft, the right to have what is yours. happiness, the right to enjoy your life with out condemnation from another)these are all basic human rights which non of us have anymore thanks to the 14th amendment we are federal citizens and as such the government has total constitutional control over us.The constitution gives exclusive right to control federal territory and property with no constraints from the people, we are no longer free but chattle property of the guv,for those of you who do not know what that means you are the slave of the fed and you allow it by not saying no to federal citizenship.Silence is concidered consent in a court of law. But the funny thing about the U.C.C. which is the law that governs contracts(everything is a contract) no one has the right to enter you into contract except yourself federal citizenship is a contract if you say to the guv no I do not want to be a U.S. Citizen I want to be a CONSTITUTIONAL citizen( only those born here can be such ) you are no longer bound by the fourteenth amendment but once again have the protection of the constitution and the BILL of RIGHTS( which cannot be legally taken away) in stead of the priviledges and immunities (which can be taken away)you become a creditor instead of a debtor. And the federal Government becomes guilty of Fraud. There is much legal precident for this as there are as of now here in the U.S. more than 500,000 Soveriegn American citizens who must be treated with especially tender care by the government because they are no longer or never were U.S. citizens but are true CONSTITUTIONAL American nationalist citizens. Of course this all depends on if you get your american national citizenship back you must do everything in your power not to attract the attention of big brother( like the unfortunate freemen of Montanawhen they refused to sell their land to a federal district court judge and his montana senator lacky. when the free men sued for cause and won these upright citizens refused to pay the courts ruled reimbursment so they set it up used over 80 federal agents and 8 million dollars to alledgedly investigate a bad fifty dollar check and then persecuted, oops prosecuted them for interfering in interstate commerce for breaking a cnn news camera while arresting the news team for tresspassing on private land ( a few months before cnn had stated in another court case in I think in north carolina that they were nor had they ever been involved in interstate commerce) this didnt stop this federal judge and his senator lacky from perse oops prosecuting these men totally out side of the law. They were not allowed to hire their own attorney they were forced to accept a federal persecuter oops I keep doing that prosecuter as their defense attorney and then when they were convicted they were all helkd in the yellowstone county jail for their entire sentences not allowed to make phone calls or apppeal. Now you may wonder why these up right citizens ( the senator and judge ) would bother to go through all this for a few measly thousand acres of marginal prairie land well it  just so happens that land was smack dab in the middle of the largest gas field (natural )on this continent not to mention the place wind power proponents said has the strongest most constant wind in AmericaThis land was owned by one of the mens families long before anyone knew what gas was like 6 or seven generations his family wrestled out of the natives hands in the 1870s. they had all the legal rights to any minerals which lie under the ground. So you tell me does it really matter what the law says or the constitution says so long as men like tgis are in charge of the law.

Quote:


I agree. I think it's both, perhaps more a state issue, since not all marriages (i.e. male/female) need to be performed in a church or religous setting for it to be deemed legal. The authorizing body is the city/state the individuals reside in; hence my thought of it being a more "state" issue.

Quote:

It seems at least mildly a constitutional issue based on principles laid down in the Preamble: "... to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity ..."

It can be cogently argued that providing for gay marriage forms "a more perfect union" by giving gays full access to a social institution all other citizens have access to, even if they're hardened felons; it may also be argued that making gay marriage legal federally would "establish justice" on behalf of gay people; then there's the argument that federally legalizing gay marriage promotes "the general welfare" by securing and dispersing "the blessings of liberty" equally to all citizens regardless of their sexuality. Opponents may argue, naturally, that the entire gay marriage issue indeed disrupts rather than insures "domestic tranquility," and that such disruption does not "promote the general welfare," and therefore actually contributes to a burgeoning imperfection of the union.

It seems to me the issue turns on the specifically mentioned constitutional virtues of establishing justice and securing liberty for all citizens. Because I fail to see how making gay marriage federally legal would impose a condition of "injustice" or deprive any person of any "blessings of liberty" they currently enjoy, my feeling is that there's no compelling reason to deny gays access to a secular form of marriage - and to call it what it is, "marriage," rather than euphemize the union with a redundant term like "civil union."

Dan the Palin Fan wrote on Jan 26^th, 2009 at 5:05pm:


The Founders clearly thought there were other rights not clearly addressed hence the 9th Amendment. The courts have ruled marriage is a fundamental right..... denying that right to consenting adults because of a religious definition of marriage would be a violation of that right in my opinion and therefore a federal issue.

melinuxfool wrote on Nov 6^th, 2009 at 9:17am:


That's identical to the old argument about interracial marriage.  "It's not an equality problem because you can marry whoever you want, as long as they're in the same race!"