Quote:

r3x29yz4a said:
Thank Jesus that we have someone in the white house who isn't afraid to openly discriminate. Who ever said the constitution was meant for freedom?
Washington and Jefferson were just practical jokers. All that freedom and pursuit of happiness stuff was a joke.



Quote:

the G-man said:
How many gay marriages were occuring in 1776?

Anyone? Anyone?





Quote:

magicjay38 said:
Just a few less than happen today in this shit hole of a country!



Quote:

the G-man said
The point, however, is that, given the were no gay marriages (or at least no legally sanctioned gay marriages) at the time the Constitution was drafted and/or ratified, it is difficult to see how Ray can argue that the Founding Fathers intended to protect such marriages in the constitution.



Quote:

r3x29yz4a said:
so by your standard the ammendment ending slavery should be overturned because it directly violates the standard in 1776.



Actually, your attempt to draw an analogy to slavery proves, rather than questions, my point.

Slavery, sadly, existed at the time of the passage and ratification of the constitution. Therefore, a prohibition against it was contrary to the founders' intent. As such, it required an amendment to prohibit it.

You, on the other hand, are arguing that gay marriage, something that did NOT exist at the time of the constitution's passage, something that was, in fact wholly outlawed, is somehow consistent to the founders' intent.

I have said in the past that I think the issue of gay marriage should be decided by legislation and that, if the appropriate legislature approves gay marriage, I have no problem with that.

However, I continue to oppose "legislation from the bench." Such judicial activism is, I would submit, wholly and clearly inconsistent with the framers' intent that there be a "separation of powers" between the judicial, executive and legislative branches.

If an amendment is necessary to prevent the courts from exceeding their authority, I would submit that the amendment is more consistent, not less, with the intent of the constitution to separate powers.