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.
Redefining marriage isn't in the Constitution, so that's why you don't see it.
There you go again, oddly insisting I'm not aware of what is in the Constitution.
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.
And initially, -- I stated to you that:
Unenumerated rights [like marriage] can be reasonably regulated under common law police powers, tempered by the 'Law of the Land', -- IE, - bearing in mind Constitutional protections of individual rights.
-- Read it this time. -- "MARRIAGE LAW" can be reasonably regulated by States. -- As long as they do not violate Constitutional due process.
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.
Listen to yourself, claiming that a 'Federal judge' can in effect "usurp the Constitution". - Hype.
States can ignore, - & fight, - irrational judicial opinions. --- Checks & balances of power, remember?