It should be your first clue that the court is stacked with fucking political ideologues that have no concerns with the elementary language and understanding of the Constitution but rather simply seek to further their politically biased agendas.
See, here is the thing, all I see you advocating for, is a different type of ideologue on the court, one that would rule in favor of your liberal social agenda. Say what you will about the SCOTUS, they are appointed by the president and approved by Congress. You don't like the judges picked, maybe you should vote for different pickers?
Furthermore, there are several details rational people need to have here.... We're not going to abolish the SCOTUS, and we're not going to impeach all the justices and appoint libertarians in their place. Those are things that will not happen in our reality. Regardless of what 9 people we pick, chances are, they are not ALL going to agree with your particular interpretation of the Constitution.
So this is where you stop having an "argument" and begin to have a mindless rant. Just pointing that out.
OK, I presented my interpretation of amendment 9, what’s yours?
It doesn't matter, you and I aren't sitting on the SCOTUS. What's important here, is noting that people do have difference of opinion regarding what the Constitution says. They don't all agree with your interpretation, and they don't all agree with mine. Hell, they may not agree with either one of us! They seldom all agree with each other, and most of the time, have a split vote on any given issue.
Now, at the conclusion of a SCOTUS ruling, there is a majority opinion written, as well as a dissenting opinion, and found within both of those, are the detailed interpretations of specific articles and amendments in the Constitution. If these opinions didn't have to be submitted, I might be able to better accept your "partisan political ideologue" line. That's not to say justices aren't ideological, but then... aren't we all? Show me someone who forms their opinions and makes decisions without regard to their personal ideology, and I will show you a certified idiot. Even though they might often be guided by their personal ideology, their decisions have to be backed with an articulation and interpretation of what is in the Constitution. You don't have to agree.
“The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” (Amendment 9, United States Constitution)
I say amendment 9 is saying that “the people” have every and any right to do anything they want as long as they don’t infringe on any rights of others. Because the only possible disclaimer to amendment 9 is one cannot assume a right that violates another’s rights. Thereby, since what free adults put into their own bodies and who they make agreeable marriage contracts with violates “NOBODY’S” rights or freedoms. What say ye ole bigoted one? Tell us your interpretation of amendment 9.
I say your interpretation is wrong because SCOTUS has ruled differently. If you were a SCOTUS justice and this was something you had written in a majority opinion, I might be inclined to see it differently. The point is, not everyone agrees with your interpretation. You believe it is simple, and everyone should just automatically see it your way, and this is what I keep trying to tell you, is not reality.
Marriage, in of itself, is not a right. We don't have the right to be married. In fact, a good many people will never be married. Maybe they can't find a suitable partner? Perhaps no one wants to marry them? Should we pass a law that you have a "right" to marry someone, even if they don't want to marry you? Remember, if it's not harming anyone or infringing on their rights? Of course, you will claim that it has to be "consenting adults" but we can change meanings of traditional words, so this is easy to fix, and that's what we must do, in order to ensure everyone has the right to be married! How can we stand ourselves? Living in a world where ugly people are discriminated against and never get to experience marriage? It's unthinkable! We need to change and alter traditional definitions to right this terrible injustice!
Here's another idea, since we can change the meaning of marriage to include homosexual couples, why not just say that "marriage" gives public consent by it's very nature, and anyone who is "married" is basically giving consent to engage in sexual relations with? Look, they're obviously not virgins, they are married! So why should some people not have the right to experience sex with them? I know "marriage" has traditionally been intended to be a union between a man and woman, but since we're changing the definition, why not take it further to ensure the rights of others? It's not fair that some happy heterosexual couple, or homosexual couple for that matter, are getting to enjoy the liberty and rights of marriage with each other, and the rest of society is left cold and lonely. Violating THEIR rights? These people are already fucking, that's why they married! What difference does it make who's sexual organs are being used?
Oh but it does matter! You claim “others,” who ever the fuck they’re supposed to be disagree with my interpretations and that’s your total argument in a fucking nut shell. Actually, the Constitution is the peoples guarantee of individual freedom and limited government. So, if the people don’t know how to interpret their guarantee, what the hell good is it? Is the government and its court your mother, your father, or your nanny? Do you need a corrupt government and it’s court to decide what your rights and freedoms are for you or can you do that for yourself?
If you don’t disagree with my interpretations, then what in hell is your argument aside from blather and shovel loads of rhetorical horseshit?
And here is our main problem. You live in a fantasy world. You believe, because it is this way in your world, that pretty much the entire world thinks like you do. You believe there are only a few ignorant people like me in the world, who don't yet see the light, and you are here to shed that light on us. If it weren't for us handful of ignorant people, the entire governmental structure of our nation would be working just fine, but us ignorant people have somehow filled the courts with ideologues and politicos, and being we're so ignorant, simply don't realize what we've done. You're here to straighten us out with simplistic interpretations in plain English any 7th grader can understand, as to what the Constitution says and means. If only we weren't too ignorant to grasp it!
Beyond that, I am really fuzzy about what you expect us to do about our profound public ignorance and inability to see things your way! At times, you sound as though you're ready to summon the torches and pitchforks, but then you back away from that... It's like you believe that you can somehow wake up one day to a world which totally sees everything the way you do, and doesn't have any difference of opinion on what the Constitution means. But we both know, this isn't reality, right?
Oh! So then you see “FREEDOMS” for homosexuals and equal treatment under State laws as somehow an infringement on your religious rights? OK! Now articulate just how your religious rights are infringed upon by a gay marriage. Do they prevent you from having a heterosexual marriage? Do homosexual marriages make your religious activities null and void? Do they keep you from your church and “YOUR” moral principles? Do homosexual marriages force you to become homosexual? Just how does a homosexual marriage infringe on any of your rights? How is your “free religious expression” violated?
What I can see is you have no argument!!! That should be perfectly evident to everybody and anybody.
You've not established that some "freedom" is being denied to homosexuals, which is afforded to heterosexuals. You've show no unequal treatment under the law, because no state marriage license is based on sexuality. They aren't even based on any sexual intimacy or LOVE! They have always been between a man and woman, because that is what "marriage" is. We can go through the history of modern marriages and marital law, and why our government even needs to know what our personal arrangements are called or how we define them. The bottom line is, homosexuals are free to get married, they've been doing so for years and years. You keep wanting to include same-sex relations in 'marriage' and that is something else, not marriage. This is where religion comes in. To many Christian-based religions, marriage is a sacred union of a
man and woman, and has profound significance in religious expression and beliefs of the church regarding the institution of family. "Homosexual marriage" is an affront to those beliefs, and does in fact, hamper and encroach on their ability to exercise their religion. [Disclaimer: This argument is presented to illustrate that
some people disagree with you, it's not
MY argument, per say.]
Oh but they do matter to me and every honest unbiased citizen because the Constitution is our written guarantee of inalienable rights and freedoms. If I expect government to protect my inalienable rights and freedoms, (the only rightful authority and duty of government), then I sure as hell expect that an honest and rightful government shall also protect the inalienable rights and freedoms of others/everybody. That of course would include homosexuals and the rights of others to decide for themselves what they shall and shall not put into their own bodies. FUCK the courts! When they violate the Constitution my written guarantee, they are as criminal as a criminal can be and as corrupt as corruption can be. I don’t need right-wing and left-wing ideologues deciding my rights and freedoms for me, with politically biased opinions, only judges loyal to the strict construction of my written guarantee, the Constitution are valid in my world.
I agree that your opinion and voice should be heard! My contention with you, is over your fantasy that everyone sees things your way, or else they are ignorant and crazy. People genuinely disagree on what the Constitution says and means, this has been going on for as long as the document has existed, in fact, they couldn't even ratify it without the first 10 changes in the can! The SCOTUS has struggled and often gotten it completely wrong over the years, and somehow, we all managed to survive without some genocidal revolution wiping out millions. The system isn't perfect, but "FUCK the courts?" Really? And what do you propose we replace the courts with? Mob rule? You might not fucking like the outcome of that.
Let's get this clear, you have a certain understanding and interpretation of the Constitution and what it means. So do I. So do the 9 justices on the Supreme Court. Guess who's opinion matters the most? It's the system we have, and are going to have. That's reality, man! What you need to do, is wake the fuck up from your fantasy dream. If you don't like the Justices, vote for different people, work to have them elected, press your congress to challenge their rulings, voice your opinion! I support you 100% in doing that! But when you board the Crazy Train, and start chortling "FUCK the courts!" Someone needs to reel you back in.
What the judges today are going to decide isn’t necessarily the “constitutionality” or lack thereof of anything, what they do decide is what they wish to be “legal” or “illegal” and to hell with the Constitution. They often legalize crime and illegalize freedom.
Again, any decision made by SCOTUS, that I am aware of, features a majority and dissenting opinion. In both cases, the justices lay out their argument and interpretations of the Constitution. They often cite the Federalist Papers, and the Founding Fathers original intent, sometimes they offer great detail in this regard, but never... ever.... have I seen such an opinion rendered, based on political ideology and what they simply thought should be the law without regard for the Constitution. If you have such an example, present it! I'd love to read it! But here is the problem... You don't have such evidence, and what you have is your interpretation not being agreed to by the court, and you just can't accept they don't agree with you, so you've deemed them ignorant fools and ideologues. Just to note; This is a classic symptom of BIGOTRY.
Redress to WHO? The left-wing and right-wing of corrupt government and it’s kangaroo court? Funny fellow! The only way for redress is to throw the bastards out of government and replace them with people loyal to the Constitution. That fact should be perfectly clear to any honest and thinking folk.
Hey, we can parade around with the Constitution AND the Flag! Go America! I'm ALL FOR AMERICA! Yea Constitution! So.... If we throw everyone out of government, and replace them with people who interpret the Constitution the same as you, and then we replace the SCOTUS with a collection of judges who also see the Constitution the same as you, and would always find unanimous consent according to your universally understood interpretations of the Constitution, everything would be right with the world?
That’s not the “bottom line” that’s your “ONLY” line and it’s a tiresome and pathetic line and a fraudulent and pathetic argument. It’s mindless babble!!!
That IS the bottom line, as you continue to prove.
