gosh a ruddies, you should not be told to move to Canada because of your antediluvian views. Canada is a pretty enlightened country on its views toward the marriage issue, They leagalized same sex marriage 10 years ago. you would be much better off in Saudi Arabia or Iran, or some other theocracy.

HitsRus;1740176 wrote: Marriage has always been specifically man and woman, not any two people.

And prior to Loving v. Virginia, marriage was defined between same-race men and women. Loving v. Virginia didn't change the definition of marriage, it changed who may enter into marriage. Loving is a universally approved decision.

Under your line of logic, the Loving ruling shouldn't have been allowed because until that point, marriage was between a man and woman of the same race only.

Additionally, you're dead wrong about contractual construction. It's not a matter of interpretation, it's a matter of legal construction. You're either oblivious to that distinction or you're choosing to ignore it. A marriage contract creates a bundle of rights associated with marriage; Once again, and for the last time since you CLEARLY cannot grasp this concept: the Supreme Court did not change the subject matter of a marriage contract, which would be changing the bundle of rights associated with the contract; instead, the Supreme Court changed WHO may enter into marriage contracts. The same exact thing they did in Loving v. Virginia

HitsRus;1740176 wrote:
I should not be told to "move to Canada" for sticking up for the traditional constitutional mechanisms

As Isadore said, you're right. You should instead be told to move to a place where the laws are completely rigid and never changing, like Iran, because that's what you're advocating.

"Traditional constitutional mechanisms" is a phrase completely ignoring evolution of the law through both the courts and the legislative body. The only people who think like that are old white males who want the world to revert back to what it was during the days of the drafting of the Constitution, when they held all the power.

I'm going to guess you're white, male, and over the age of 55.

HitsRus;1740176 wrote:But a law written by the people should amended by the people not by the simple majority of 9 jurists unaccountable to the people.

So you're advocating getting rid of the judicial review aspect of the court system completely and also getting rid of the checks and balances therein.

Got it.

But wait, you're also advocating for a traditional view of the Constitution, which explicitly created the checks and balances system you're bitching and moaning about.

Got it.

lhslep134;1740210 wrote:So you're advocating getting rid of the court system completely and also getting rid of the checks and balances therein.

Got it.

I think he's advocating for the writing of laws to be removed from the courts. In theory, the Congress is supposed to do that.

Obviously, the Supreme Court does have some power in this area when it pertains to current laws denying citizens rights.

I think that's where the rub is in the conversation here.

O-Trap;1740212 wrote:I think he's advocating for the writing of laws to be removed from the courts. In theory, the Congress is supposed to do that.

Obviously, the Supreme Court does have some power in this area when it pertains to current laws denying citizens rights.

I think that's where the rub is in the conversation here.

It's no different than Loving v. Virginia, which I addressed above. Race (Loving) and sexual orientation (Obergefell). Neither have anything to do with the subject matter of marriage, only who may enter into the marriage contract.

That argument has yet to be addressed by the Ole Boys Club.

I love it, "Ole Boys Club"!