Next Big Debate, Obergefell v. Hodges, Gay Marriage

But that's what I am also saying. Some things that people claim as freedoms are not spelled out as freedoms inside the written constitution. They include gay marriage, but also include eating shellfish, divorce, contraception, alcohol consumption and television.

So, what logic is there, according only to the written document upon which the US polity claims its rights, to ban any of the things that are not expressly prohibited in the constitution?

This is a genuine question that people will ask us. So how do we answer?

it prohibits the forced indoctrination of the sexual preference to all against one's conscience

Because history tells us it was written to a 'christian nation' . Things like marriage being a man and woman was as old as history. Maybe not Christian like every denomination would want but it and the Declaration of Independence are Bible based .

Right, but it doesn't say that in the constitution. Again, this is the document that people are using to found their legal and political footing on. And it doesn't mention religious preference. At all.

There are only two genders, yes. Having sex with children is wrong, yes. And I also refuse to call anyone a pronoun.

But you're missing my point. People are using the constitution to ban gay marriage even when the Constitution doesn't mention it. The Bible is not the document upon which American society bases its polity and law; the constitution of the US is.

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume, among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That, whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

The Constitution did not mention Nuclear war, terrorism, or gang bangers, YET; moral-minded people can see and know this is not the right thing to do. The action brings its own merits. Only those with a perverted mindset would not agree. IF the Document had to say every single thing that was wrong, Black would still be slaves in America. That is why John Adams's statement is authoritative because it is true.

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other"

Individualistically and democratically, but not authoritatively. Essentially, it seems to me that it comes down to state votes.

I think the greater point of the constitution, from reading some of it, seems to be self determination even if it means a national split.

I think the greater point of the constitution, from reading some of it, seems to be self determination even if it means a national split.

So why is the government getting involved in marriage at all?

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other"

😊You might enjoy this old Heritage Foundation article as an answer.

Why Is Government in the Marriage Business?

Dec 12th, 2012

Not in the constitution, mate. Seriously. It's not there.

I believe the idea was to avoid a split sorta like on these points we agree so lets get along

Not in the constitution, mate. Seriously. It's not there.

Marriage ensures the nations continues