Of course, that ain't in there and I'm not pushing a damned thing. I dont support gay marriage in any way, shape or fashion. Read the rest of my responses and you'll see it's quite the opposite. It's you guys that are pushing something. It's called progressivism and it's dangerous whether pushed by republicans as by democrats.
So when you've established that the Constitution means and says whatever you want, how do you tell a liberal that they dont have the power to do the same thing? And once it's established that either party can violate the Const at will, what leg are you standing on when they regulate away the 2nd ammendment or any of the others? That's the bottom line of what I'm saying.
It's incumbent upon US, not the govt to protect marriage.
“I knew that. And I also knew that Article VIII Section I gave the fed gov the power to regulate morality.
Of course, that ain’t in there and I’m not pushing a damned thing.”
And so what is your explanation of Reynolds vs United States? Are you going to try to shoehorn that into your catchall category of progressivism?
Reynolds v US is the 1878 decision supporting federal anti-polygamy legislation, the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act that based its judgement in English common law dating back to James I.
This is a decision based on Mormon practices that predate the Civil War, hardly within the Progressive era. And like DOMA it defines the limits of marriage.