Thread: gay marriage unconstitutional?

I can't finger a marriage performed by Pastor Elvis in Vegas to be religious, nor can I of those lunch hour courthouse weddings.

Originally Posted by Dubyas-Twin-Sister

I can't finger a marriage performed by Pastor Elvis in Vegas to be religious, nor can I of those lunch hour courthouse weddings.

YOUR MAKING MY POINT! Conservatives are arguing about the SANCTITY of marriage and how SACRED it is and that is why gays shouldn't marry! Jesus Christ you guys are dumb...

Originally Posted by rockinbod720

YOUR MAKING MY POINT! Conservatives are arguing about the SANCTITY of marriage and how SACRED it is and that is why gays shouldn't marry! Jesus Christ you guys are dumb...

It's "you're" and what point exactly am I making for you? No need to insult.

Originally Posted by rockinbod720

YOUR MAKING MY POINT! Conservatives are arguing about the SANCTITY of marriage and how SACRED it is and that is why gays shouldn't marry! Jesus Christ you guys are dumb...

5 Posts and you already have perfected the ad hominum, nice!

Originally Posted by Luigi

5 Posts and you already have perfected the ad hominum, nice!

Lmao.........mate

Originally Posted by rockinbod720

I haven't heard any politicians argue that the whole idea of banning or granting gay marriage is unconstitutional, meaning that marriage is involved with religions and religions have their own rules for gays. Isn't this argument violating the separation of church and state?
Let me know what you think about this viewpoint...

There is no such thing as the seperation of church and state. There is however Article IV Section 1.

The Constitution guarantees each member state republican (small r) governance under Article IV, section 4. Judicial fiat is not republican governance.

The obligation of the Full Faith and Credit clause of Article IV, Section 1 is to give full faith & credit to another member State's legitimate public Acts, Record and Judicial Proceedings. When a State, or Federal Judiciary oversteps its bounds, (like granting sodomy based marriage) that proceeding can be ignored.

But don't worry, the President we now have doesn't have the stones to do something like that. He would rather try for a federal ammendment which (he knows full well will never pass) is unnecessary, dangerous and inappropriate. If the Supreme Court can ignore the First and Second Amendments with impunity, why would they remain obedient to another Amendment appended to the Constitution?

It may not be spelt out, but Separation of Church and state is an absolute necessity in a Democratic society.

And dont refer to same sex marriages as sodomy based please.

Originally Posted by Feslin

Hell, just call it "Civil Union" so the Christians won't have an aneurism.

Just Christians? You believe that Christians only object to gay unions?

Originally Posted by Migi e!

Just Christians? You believe that Christians only object to gay unions?

Nope, just intollerant Fundamentalists

Originally Posted by Roach

Nope, just intollerant Fundamentalists

Ok, that's funny.
However<comma> some folks just find it disgusting.