<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:iqs930lg64b7u7sccaep8q9k0b245dfv5s@4ax.com...
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|
:|"Jeffrey J. Sargent" <jjsargent@go.com> wrote in message
:|news:de94b2f3.0402171630.6de99f68@posting.google.com...
:|> Pardon the cross-posting, but I really want to disseminate these
ideas
:|widely.
:|>
:|> Irrespective of one's views on gay marriage, there are two related
:|> reasons why the Constitution -- any Constitution, but especially
:|> the U.S. Constitution -- should *not* prohibit gay marriage,
:|> should indeed be silent on the issue. If one is a true American,
:|> true to the ideas and principles on which this country was founded,
:|> and committed to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution
:|> of the United States", one must oppose any such amendment,
:|> and here are the two reasons why:
:|>
:|
:|But, isn't opposition to gay marriage a social opposition instead of a
:|government prohibition? Can't society make demands separate from
government?
:|
:|Marriage is not a right, like life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness.
FALSE JEFFY
YOU DIDN'T DO YOUR HOMEWORK AGAIN
The USSC has said that marriage is a fundamental right.
LOVING v. VIRGINIA, 388 U.S. I (1967) Also see .
Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S.
190 (1888).
Neither of those rulings ban homosexuals from marrying.
Meanwhile, however, same-sex "marriage" remains illegal, and will continue
to do so.
.
