show me where the us constitution specifically speaks abut gay marriage.
The frightening side of “gay marriage” is that it shoehorns in discrimination against those who support traditional marriage, such as saying that a single mother who puts a baby up for adoption to a married two parent family can’t say it can’t go to two lesbians, or a man in a dress arguing that it has an equal right to using women’s bathrooms under the same “equal protections” arguments as gay marriage.
I wish that the judges would reference constitutional clauses and supportive excerpts from the writings of founders like Thomas Jefferson, and also Supreme Court case opinions, to justify their stances on gay marriage. Then we’d know which judges are pro-gay activists trying to protect gay marriage.
In fact, based on how he failed to argue 10th Amendment for his Ten Commandments display, Judge Moore sounds to me like a “flag, motherhood and apple pie” patriot who really doesn’t know how to substantiate his assertions with the Constitution and its history.
It doesn’t, and the 10th Amendment says that any power not specifically enumerated in the Constitution as a power of the federal government belongs to the States or to the people.
The State of Alabama defined marriage as the union between a man and a woman. A federal judge says the State can’t do that. It is up to that judge to show exactly where the Constitution enumerates the power of defining marriage to the federal government.
Can’t be done, because it’s not in there.
If they try going the “equal protection” route, then they have to say that a brother Constitutionally has to have the right to marry his sister “equally protected” also. A mother’s Constitutional right to marry her son has to have equal protection. Etc. If “equal protection” means that everybody has to be allowed everything, with no definitions, then the government has no right to define disability eligibility, and everybody’s “right” to receive disability has to be protected, regardless of whether they fit any definition of “disabled”. Etc.
This is about whether the Constitution allows any definitions to exist. Kind of like Obama’s amnesty decree is about whether the Constitution allows a BORDER to exist.
When post-modernism (everybody creates their own “truth” or reality) takes over the courts, everything is up for grabs. When that happens, the nation cannot continue to exist.