Decree is your word, it doesn't apply in a constitutional republic. Royalty issues decrees, in America we legislate. So your argument here is with yourself. Good luck.
Yep, they can make Constitutional law & 'regulations', - but not decrees.
Like I said, argue with yourself on decrees, it doesn't interest me.
Reasonable regulations. I agree.
Right, so the states can regulate marriage.
Unreasonable reg. -- Why should I care if Bruce wants to 'marry' you? - I don't.
Since Bruce is presumably a male he can not marry another male. Words have meaning. Newspeak doesn't interest me wither. But you've already agreed that states can regulate marriage, if you insist on changing the meaning of words then lobby your legislature to do so. Here, I won't wish you luck.
They could try, but I doubt that such an amendment could be drafted to avoid infringing on our individual right to make valid contracts.
There is no infringement, anybody can make contracts with anybody else. You just can't urinate down my leg and call ir April showers.
Wrong. -- The USSC could issue an opinion that such an Amendment was repugnant to Constitutional principles. -- And any government Official, at any level, could then refuse to enforce such an Amendment, on the grounds that it violated Constitutional principles.
I want you to cite me the relevant section of the constitution supporting your idea. Failing that you should retract the statement. Good luck here, you're gonna need it.
So I guess we agree that while government can regulate marriage, they can not abridge the right to marry?
Certainly and since the definition of marriage since the founding of this country has been the union of one man and one woman, I think you've seen the light.
Congress doesn;t regulate marriage, the states do.
States can "regulate", but they cannot make laws that decree marriage 'illegal' based on what the state legislators think will be beneficial to society. - Neither feds nor states have ever been delegated such prohibitive powers. --
--- they can make Constitutional law & 'regulations', - but not decrees.
Decree is your word, it doesn't apply in a constitutional republic.
That's my point. - Thanks.
Royalty issues decrees, in America we legislate. -- argue with yourself on decrees, it doesn't interest me.
Yep, we legislate under rule of constitutional law, not rules as decreed by politicians.
You can't marry your sister. You can't marry a two year old.
Reasonable regulations. I agree.
Right, so the states can regulate marriage.
Amazing, -- you got my point.
If you don't live in Mass you can't marry somebody of the same sex.
Unreasonable reg. -- Why should I care if Bruce wants to 'marry' you? - I don't.
Since Bruce is presumably a male he can not marry another male.
So you claim, begging the question.
the Words have meaning. Newspeak doesn't interest me wither. But you've already agreed that states can regulate marriage,
Yep, reasonable regulations.
The states and Congress can certainly amend the constitution to define marriage as the union of one man and one woma if they so choose.
They could try, but I doubt that such an amendment could be drafted to avoid infringing on our individual right to make valid contracts.
There is no infringement, anybody can make contracts with anybody else. You just can't urinate down my leg and call it April showers.
There you go 'boldly' contradicting yourself again. You've been arguing that you & Bruce can't contract to 'marry'.
Dude, when they amend the constituion that is the law of the land until further amendment. There is no judicial review --- . Sorry.
Wrong. -- The USSC could issue an opinion that such an Amendment was repugnant to Constitutional principles. -- And any government Official, at any level, could then refuse to enforce such an Amendment, on the grounds that it violated Constitutional principles.
I want you to cite me the relevant section of the constitution supporting your idea. Failing that you should retract the statement. Good luck here, you're gonna need it.
I cite Article VI, wherein ALL officials in the US are sworn to support our Constitutional principles as the Law of the Land.
_______________________________________
jwalsh07 writes an aside:
You can't even make a rational argument, -- you need to go back and read the Constitution, the Federalist papers and the Declaration of Independence. Then get back to me.
You just attempted above to refute my rational arguments. -- You failed. Get back to me when you gather the courage to try again.