No reading of the Constitution can be logically sustained that invents a new right to impose a mockery of marriage on the entire nation by judicial fiat.
Irrational reply, since no one is inventing "a new right".
Retreating to ad hominem
Terming your reply 'irrational' is a fact not an attack. None of my comments 'impose a mockery'.
(a trademark of you I hear)
Personal comment, no?
will not help you. There is no irrational reply, because someone is inventing a new "right". The new "right" is redefinition of marriage. A "right" that does not exist in the Constitution.
-- I don't see any 'new right' that our Constitution will force us to acknowledge. How odd that you seem to think I do.
"Any" act? -- Due process of law does not allow fiat criminalization [prohibitions] to be written & enforced. -- Governments simply lack the dictatorial power to prohibit non-violent acts under our constitutional system.
Your talking in circles now.
Irrational circles? Ad hominem circles perhaps? how droll.
You pulled out the "consenting adults" line. When called on that,
You've "called" [rationally debated] nothing.
you set 18 as the limit. Now, when pressed, you want to invent more restrictions. If what other libertarians on this thread are telling me is true, then perhaps you are one of the libertines that has co-opted the libertarian label??
No "perhaps" about it, you are now making the 'ad hominem' remarks, not I.
Nothing in my comment said it did.
Well then, I'm not sure exactly what your comment was in response to.
We've been discussing State powers to prohibit 'sinful acts', a power you insist -- "has aways been within the realm of the individual states --".
You have an exaggerated view of "State powers", imho. -- States are bound by Article VI to support the "Law of the Land", --- "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary, notwithstanding. --"
Read the LP platform.
Get lost till you come up with some new lines.
Sorry bud, I ain't goin nowhere. Read the LP platform. It clearly supports the Homosexual Agenda's attempt to usurp the Constitution.
What the queers and the LP rant about marriage doesn't bother me, as nothing they say on the subject can "usurp the Constitution". -- You're all hyped up about virtually nothing.
Find a new fetish.
I didn't say your comments did. I said the Homosexual Agenda's plan, one that the LP goes along with does however.
Personal comment, no?
Only going by what I'm told.
-- I don't see any 'new right' that our Constitution will force us to acknowledge. How odd that you seem to think I do.
Redefining marriage isn't in the Constitution, so that's why you don't see it. However, The ACLU, LPers and Homos see that right in there, they just need a sympathetic judge to divine it to the surface for them.
We've been discussing State powers to prohibit 'sinful acts', a power you insist -- "has aways been within the realm of the individual states --".
That's quite incorrect. I stated that MARRIAGE LAW has aways been within the realm of the individual states. I'd suggest that you re-read Post 201, 205, & 209 for starters.
What the queers and the LP rant about marriage doesn't bother me, as nothing they say on the subject can "usurp the Constitution". -- You're all hyped up about virtually nothing.
A Federal Judge sympathetic to them CAN however.