Quote:

the G-man said:
You can't make arguments that assumes "facts" or principles of law that don't actually exist.

You want to argue that public policy favors gay marriage, that's fine. I think there are many legitimate arguments to be made in that vein.

But the only way your argument about "the founding fathers" works is if you assume the founders intended there to be a right to gay marriage in the Constitution.

The Constitution is a law.

It is a basic principle of legal analysis that you should consider the intent of the drafters of a law when you need to figure out what the law means or what it covers.

At the time the constitution was drafted, there is no evidence whatsoever that the drafters intended it to be a protection of the right to gay marriage.



You completely misinterperate every post you read, it seems like.

Quote:

r3x29yz4a said:
the gay marriage amendment is writing a ban on a right and a form of discrimination into the constitution. this pisses on the essence of the constitution's foundings.



The founding of the constitution establishes rights and freedom from discrimination/oppression. While the FF ment mostly only white, land-owning males, as history progresses the ideals of our constitution have encompassed all humans, ergo making a form of oppression part of America pisses on the [living] constitution.

Old men, fear me! You will shatter under my ruthless apathetic assault!

Uschi - 2
Old Men - 0

"I am convinced that this world is of no importance, and that the only people who care about dates are imbeciles and Spanish teachers." -- Jean Arp, 1921

"If Jesus came back and saw what people are doing in his name, he would never never stop throwing up." - Max von Sydow, "Hannah and Her Sisters"