The words "abortion" and "marriage" aren't in the Constitution? Neither is the word "democracy".

John_C_87

excon said:

Hello:

Some people say the ABSENCE of those words in the Constitution, is significant in what laws should be made and what laws should NOT be made..  I wonder, however, does the ABSENCE of the word "democracy" have the same significance?

excon

Okay lets take this in the order...written.
The word abortion is held by a state of the unon in word Constitution. If the word constitution is used in the selfevident truth like the words American united states consitution the word abortion is also in the self-evident truth. 
The order given to offcialy start a task that has officaly been reconised to have started may or may not be used in description of crime. All women are created equal by thier creator by calling pregnancy a process of immigration both mariied and unwed mothers take part in an immigration process when fertilization of a embryo occured. 

CYDdharta

Yes it does.  Why do you ask?

Barnardot

That was the most detailed and convincing argument I have ever saw and when you went into all that detail like you did it took a long time to get it all but then I did get it and I don’t have time to go through the hundreds of points that you pointed out but when you said yes and then not long after you said that it does that can’t be argued with really. @CYDdharta

excon

CYDdharta said:

Yes it does.  Why do you ask?

Hello C:

I'm glad you asked..  To me, this debate encompasses one of the most serious issues of our day, so I thought it would make for a good debate..  However, if you're one of the people who screamed bloody hell about the word "marriage", not being in the Constitution, I can see WHY you wouldn't want to address the question.

So, you just sit tight, and when this debate gets warmed up, you might just learn a thing or two.

excon

excon

John_C_87 said:

The word abortion is held by a state of the unon in word Constitution. If the word constitution is used in the selfevident truth like the words American united states consitution the word abortion is also in the self-evident truth.

Hello John:

I haven't the faintest clue what you said.  I try, but I can't make sense of anything you say..  I wonder if that's on purpose.

There was a comedian, long dead now, named Professor Irwin Corey.  He was known as the foremost authority on everything..  He would season his speech with many long and florid authentic words, and then launch into observations about anything under the sun, but seldom actually making sense.

Here's an example:  "However … we all know that protocol takes precedence over procedures. This parliamentary point of order based on the state of inertia of developing a centrifugal force issued as a catalyst rather than as a catalytic agent, and hastens a change reaction and remains an indigenous brier to its inception.  This is a focal point used as a tangent so the bile is excreted through the pancreas."

Sounds exactly like you. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irwin_Corey

I don't mean to be impolite, and if you suffer from some ailment that has you mix up words, I'm VERY sensitive to that..    But, I think it's fair to ask.

excon

SkepticalOne

@excon
I wonder if this is in reference to senator Cornyn pointing out marriage equality is not in the Constitution while religious freedom is and suggesting religious freedom trumps marriage equality because of this. Someone needs to remind the senator that an amendment process is mentioned in the Constitution to address issues the founders couldn't foresee. In other words, just because something isn't mentioned explicitly in the Constitution doesn't mean it is a less important.

excon

SkepticalOne said:

I wonder if this is in reference to senator Cornyn pointing out marriage equality is not in the Constitution while religious freedom is and suggesting religious freedom trumps marriage equality because of this.

Hello S:

Bingo!

excon

excon

SkepticalOne said:

In other words, just because something isn't mentioned explicitly in the Constitution doesn't mean it is a less important.

Hello S:

Roe v Wade will most likely be overturned..  Then they'll go after same sex marriage, and take a shot at interracial marriage after that.. Invoking democracy (a word not found in the Constitution), those are battles we already WON.

However, like the zombies they are, right wingers are NEVER dead.

excon

John_C_87

excon said:

CYDdharta said:

Yes it does.  Why do you ask?

Hello C:

I'm glad you asked..  To me, this debate encompasses one of the most serious issues of our day, so I thought it would make for a good debate..  However, if you're one of the people who screamed bloody hell about the word "marriage", not being in the Constitution, I can see WHY you wouldn't want to address the question.

So, you just sit tight, and when this debate gets warmed up, you might just learn a thing or two.

excon

The word marriage is not in the American United States Constitution marriage is a word on a list of words in a container which is held as a file of grievance inside the American United States Constitution.  A united state of law it is also held in other containers of law which are of lesser constitutional instruction and condition. The legal association to marriage as legal precedent exceeds being only constitutional. In whole truth the United States with law makes the abilities to litigation much higher when preserving the likelihood of Marriage

They will not learn...They have been coached to use understanding as a common defense to their general welfare that is why slavery even still exists in the 13th Amendment and not understood by the people as a self-evident truth, why noone understands when it ends in any written form within the context of the13th Amendment.

CYDdharta

excon said:

Hello C:

I'm glad you asked..  To me, this debate encompasses one of the most serious issues of our day, so I thought it would make for a good debate..  However, if you're one of the people who screamed bloody hell about the word "marriage", not being in the Constitution, I can see WHY you wouldn't want to address the question.

So, you just sit tight, and when this debate gets warmed up, you might just learn a thing or two.

excon

I didn't scream bloody hell about the word "marriage" not being in the Constitution, but I did address your question.  "Abortion", "marriage" and "democracy" are all irrelevant to the founding of this nation.  "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government", not a democratic form of government.

excon

CYDdharta said:

 I did address your question.  "Abortion", "marriage" and "democracy" are all irrelevant to the founding of this nation.  "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government", not a democratic form of government.

Hello C:

Thanks for joining in..

Are you saying that if issues such as abortion and marriage weren't relevant at our founding, they can't be relevant now??  Really?

PLUS

Are you saying the guarantee of a Republican form of government means Republicans, as in right wingers such as yourself, are Constitutionally in charge, while the Democrats can only watch??  Really again?

excon

CYDdharta

excon said:

CYDdharta said:

 I did address your question.  "Abortion", "marriage" and "democracy" are all irrelevant to the founding of this nation.  "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government", not a democratic form of government.

Hello C:

Thanks for joining in..

Are you saying that if issues such as abortion and marriage weren't relevant at our founding, they can't be relevant now??  Really?

PLUS

Are you saying the guarantee of a Republican form of government means Republicans, as in right wingers such as yourself, are Constitutionally in charge, while the Democrats can only watch??  Really again?

excon

No, they can be relevant.  They are states right's issues.  "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."


It comes as no surprise that someone so busy misinterpreting what ISN'T in the Constitution, wouldn't know what actually IS there, much less what it means.

SkepticalOne

excon said:

SkepticalOne said:

In other words, just because something isn't mentioned explicitly in the Constitution doesn't mean it is a less important.

Hello S:

Roe v Wade will most likely be overturned..  Then they'll go after same sex marriage, and take a shot at interracial marriage after that.. Invoking democracy (a word not found in the Constitution), those are battles we already WON.

However, like the zombies they are, right wingers are NEVER dead.

excon

I agree RvW is a target and probably won't stand. The same is probably true of Obergefell. I would like to see legislation rather than court cases protecting these rights. 

SkepticalOne

@CYDdharta

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Surely you don't think the powers delegated (or not) at the inception of the Constitution are immutable?

OakTownA

@excon

And when Roe vs Wade is thrown out, they will start coming for birth control methods, like IUDs and the pill because they might cause an abortion. They will also start going after people for "suspicious" miscarriages more frequently.

CYDdharta

SkepticalOne said:

Surely you don't think the powers delegated (or not) at the inception of the Constitution are immutable?

Of course not.  There's an amendment process.

excon

No, they can be relevant.  They are states right's issues.  "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Hello C:

Ahhh, ok.  Let's talk..  So, you think marriage should be a states right issue.  Truth is, I agree with you.  If the government would strip away all the rights that come with marriage, leaving it a purely religious institution, then pursuant to the 1st Amendment, it wouldn't be the governments business who got married.  Then if gay people wanna get married in their gay church, or any church that would have them, there's no law to stop them.  Is that what you want??

So, if you don't wanna do that, and you wanna keep on passing out rights for being married, the 14th Amendment kicks in and says EVERYBODY has those rights.  That means if YOU have a right to get married and enjoy the benefits thereof,  EVERYBODY has that right.   And, that's everybody, no matter what state they live in..

In short, the right to marry SHOULD be a states right.  And it COULD be if all the married people in the country gave up their matrimonial rights..  But, I'm thinking, that ain't gonna happen..

I'd be happy to hear your argument.

excon

CYDdharta

excon said:

Hello C:

Ahhh, ok.  Let's talk..  So, you think marriage should be a states right issue.  Truth is, I agree with you.  If the government would strip away all the rights that come with marriage, leaving it a purely religious institution, then pursuant to the 1st Amendment, it wouldn't be the governments business who got married.  Then if gay people wanna get married in their gay church, or any church that would have them, there's no law to stop them.  Is that what you want??

So, if you don't wanna do that, and you wanna keep on passing out rights for being married, the 14th Amendment kicks in and says EVERYBODY has those rights.  That means if YOU have a right to get married and enjoy the benefits thereof,  EVERYBODY has that right.   And, that's everybody, no matter what state they live in..

In short, the right to marry SHOULD be a states right.  And it COULD be if all the married people in the country gave up their matrimonial rights..  But, I'm thinking, that ain't gonna happen..

I'd be happy to hear your argument.

excon

No, the 14th amendment wouldn't apply.  Everyone would have the right to marry someone of the same sex.  The purpose of benefits for being married are to to aid in raising families.  Gay couples cannot have children.

SkepticalOne

@CYDdharta

The purpose of benefits for being married are to to aid in raising families.  Gay couples cannot have children.

Purpose according to whom?

excon

CYDdharta said:

No, the 14th amendment wouldn't apply.  Everyone would have the right to marry someone of the same sex.  The purpose of benefits for being married are to to aid in raising families.  Gay couples cannot have children.

Hello C:

That's not gonna work..   It's clear that you're depriving a subset of society of rights, and that's exactly what the 14th Amendment is all about..  

Tell me please..  Why does it bother you so that gay people can marry??  Certainly the predicted destruction of heterosexual marriage didn't happen..  What gives YOU the right to tell people who they can marry and who they can't??  I thought right wingers believed in freedom.  No, huh?

excon

CYDdharta

SkepticalOne said:

Purpose according to whom?

According to the representatives who created the benefits.

CYDdharta

excon said:

Hello C:

That's not gonna work..   It's clear that you're depriving a subset of society of rights, and that's exactly what the 14th Amendment is all about..  

Tell me please..  Why does it bother you so that gay people can marry??  Certainly the predicted destruction of heterosexual marriage didn't happen..  What gives YOU the right to tell people who they can marry and who they can't??  I thought right wingers believed in freedom.  No, huh?

excon

It doesn't deprive anyone of anything, it just doesn't grant special benefits to certain people who don't meet the criteria.  Not every benefit created by the federal government applies to everyone.

SkepticalOne

CYDdharta said:

SkepticalOne said:

Purpose according to whom?

According to the representatives who created the benefits.

...and why would they be authorities on the purpose of marriage? 

CYDdharta

SkepticalOne said:

...and why would they be authorities on the purpose of marriage? 

They're authorities on law and legal benefits.

John_C_87

@CYDdharta
It doesn't deprive anyone of anything, it just doesn't grant special benefits to certain people who don't meet the criteria.  Not every benefit created by the federal government applies to everyone.

It doesn't deprive anyone of anything, it just doesn't grant special benefits to certain people who don't meet the criteria.  Not every benefit created by the federal government applies to everyone.
Marriages was a long-standing legal likelihood which has exposed people throughout history to such atrocities as human genetic experimentation on a scientific and religious level. The person who assist in licensing a Gay marriage has committed a felony crime. they are only ever to be presumed innocent to a court cans finds them guilty law does not decree an innocent in a court of law. Period.  For the crime is many and not just one crime because of the allegations of discrimination.

The allegation of discrimination is a united state applied to what is only a witness objection.

A fraud takes place as two members of a same gender can be legally married while the union of opposite gender is consummated medically. A child was to become a citizen of a nation. The members of the same gender be it Binvir or unos mulier according to law are subject to legal witness accounts only.

The malpractice of law is monumental in the regard to same gender states of the American Constitutional union. When and if law is to be enforced or upheld, who disagree or disagree are only presuming innocence of a felony crime publicly in either direction. The identification of legal malpractice is that laws are written for no other purpose as to allow legal interpretations of law to take place. This is equal to legal malpractice and not American united state constitutional preservation toward the more perfect union. 

Two people of the same gender same a legal precedent with business and not marriage there has been no trial in that Binivir has been found to be an illegal witness account of two men entered in a public likelihood. The same is applied to as state of the union with Unosmulier. The verbal agreement to marriage was till death do we part, it was not till murder do we part.

John_C_87

@CYDdharta

Get to the point human unethical human experimentation undertaken by unethical research not restricted to inside the united states of America, meanings a global need for a market place need to be found and may stoop to civil actions in courts of law globally to get that human market.

John_C_87

@excon ;
AKA @ theState of the art Slave.

Abortion is illegal because it creates the slave by manipulating the idea of court conviction with admissions to crime now is fastest method of conviction of crime. As a legal requirement in constitutional preservation Female-specific amputation does no such illegal act..

John_C_87

@excon

Abortion is covered in the American United States Constitution under the 5th Amendment and self-incrimination. The state of Marriage and the union created is different in the nature of law and does not carry the consequence of treason which abortion holds. Though both are in a very incriminating connection set in malpractice of law.

The basic question of ensured common tranquility is over the fact of lawyer, council, and people having had been self-represented as a constitutional right or not? The writers of law have most certainly not been people who have assumed the burden of teleportation before the court.

OakTownA

@CYDdharta

"No, the 14th amendment wouldn't apply.  Everyone would have the right to marry someone of the same sex.  The purpose of benefits for being married are to to aid in raising families.  Gay couples cannot have children."

The first clause of 14th Amendment states (bolding mine):

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendment/amendment-xiv

Making same sex marriage illegal violates the bolded clause.

Approximately 15% of same sex households have children.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/325083/same-sex-couples-in-the-us-by-children-in-the-household/

There is no legal requirement for married couples to have children. If there were, that would prevent older people or infertile people from getting married. My husband and I have been married for over 10 years. We don't want kids. Is our marriage invalid? There are over 1,000 federal rights and privileges that come with a marriage license. The link below provides a short list of about 50 of them.   Of that 50, 6 relate to children, child custody, or childcare. If the primary reason for the state to legislate marriage was to support raising raising a family, why are there so few regarding children?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States

CYDdharta

OakTownA said:

Making same sex marriage illegal violates the bolded clause.

No it doesn't.  They have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex just like everyone else.

Approximately 15% of same sex households have children.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/325083/same-sex-couples-in-the-us-by-children-in-the-household/

They didn't have them as a couple.  Adoptions are a different category.

There is no legal requirement for married couples to have children. If there were, that would prevent older people or infertile people from getting married. My husband and I have been married for over 10 years. We don't want kids. Is our marriage invalid? There are over 1,000 federal rights and privileges that come with a marriage license. The link below provides a short list of about 50 of them.   Of that 50, 6 relate to children, child custody, or childcare. If the primary reason for the state to legislate marriage was to support raising raising a family, why are there so few regarding children?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States

I never claimed there was a legal requirement.  I said the "purpose of benefits for being married are to to aid in raising families".  The vast majority of those benefits aid in raising a family.

OakTownA

@CYDdharta

"No it doesn't.  They have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex just like everyone else."

Do you thing Loving vs Virginia was a good decision? This is the ruling that stated that banning interracial marriages is unconstitutional. After all, everyone had the same right to marry someone of the same race.

"They didn't have them as a couple.  Adoptions are a different category."

You didn't look at the link. 15% of same sex couples live with their BIOLOGICAL child/children. Why are adoptions a different category? Do adopted kids not count as part of a family?

"I never claimed there was a legal requirement.  I said the "purpose of benefits for being married are to to aid in raising families".  The vast majority of those benefits aid in raising a family."

Proof, please!

Here is the link, again, to the Wikki article that outlines a fraction of the rights granted to a married couple. These include things like the right to inherit without a will, the right to visit your spouse in the hospital, and the right to make funeral arrangements for your spouse. Unless the right specifically mentions children or custody, it applies to all couples, regardless of whether or not they have children. My husband and I don't want to have children. When we were applying for our marriage license, no where were we asked if we were going to have them. WE, just the two of us, are a family. You don't have to have children to be a family.

CYDdharta

OakTownA said:

Do you thing Loving vs Virginia was a good decision? This is the ruling that stated that banning interracial marriages is unconstitutional. After all, everyone had the same right to marry someone of the same race.

Marriage n. 1 the legal union of a man and a woman in order to live together and often have children. (The Oxford American Dictionary of Current English, 1999)

The definition says nothing about race.

You didn't look at the link. 15% of same sex couples live with their BIOLOGICAL child/children. Why are adoptions a different category? Do adopted kids not count as part of a family?

Use a link that isn't hidden behind a paywall.  15% may be related to ONE OF the parents, but they didn't have them as a couple.  That would be impossible.

Proof, please!
Here is the link, again, to the Wikki article that outlines a fraction of the rights granted to a married couple. These include things like the right to inherit without a will, the right to visit your spouse in the hospital, and the right to make funeral arrangements for your spouse. Unless the right specifically mentions children or custody, it applies to all couples, regardless of whether or not they have children. My husband and I don't want to have children. When we were applying for our marriage license, no where were we asked if we were going to have them. WE, just the two of us, are a family. You don't have to have children to be a family.

Once again, the vast majority of those benefits aid in raising a family.  That childless couples gain from such benefits is irrelevant.

OakTownA

@CYDdharta

"Marriage n. 1 the legal union of a man and a woman in order to live together and often have children. (The Oxford American Dictionary of Current English, 1999)

The definition says nothing about race."

You may want to try using a more up to date dictionary, as the Oxford Dictionary updated their definition of marriage to include same sex couples in 2013. https://www.businessinsider.com/oxford-dictionary-re-defining-marriage-2013-7

This is the current, accepted definition of marriage.

"a legally accepted relationship between two people in which they live together, or the official ceremony that results in this"

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/marriage

Definitions change. One of the original definitions of marriage from the 1300s is "to give (offspring) in marriage."

https://www.etymonline.com/word/marriage

Why people get married/what a marriage looks like has also change dramatically over the centuries. Laws should change to keep up with the times, otherwise around half of the adult population would still be considered property.

"Use a link that isn't hidden behind a paywall.  15% may be related to ONE OF the parents, but they didn't have them as a couple.  That would be impossible."

What's your point? Are you saying that adoption or step-parenting doesn't count? Why?

"Once again, the vast majority of those benefits aid in raising a family.  That childless couples gain from such benefits is irrelevant."

Once again, I ask for proof. Please back up your claim with facts.

John_C_87

@OakTownA
"No, the 14th amendment wouldn't apply.  Everyone would have the right to marry someone of the same sex.
I am not sure yoiu understand clearly the full scope of a American United State Consitutional right. People who have palced themselve in a state of the union legally with antoher of the same gedner can be Maried to a woman as a Consitutional right regardless of thier permission. If a child is a resalt of medical consimation of the union it is still a legal consimation to mariiage.

The consummation of a Binivir and Unosmulier are legal biding commitments a couple can be placed in udner law, which do not require a public consummation to the creation of posterity. I might explain it in other words but find these more appropriate.

OakTownA

@John_C_87

I was quoting someone else. I agree that the 14th amendment means that same sex couples can get married.

John_C_87

@OakTownA

"No, the 14th amendment wouldn't apply.  Everyone would have the right to marry someone of the same sex.

I am not sure you understand clearly the full scope of a American United State Constitutional right. People who have placed themselves in a state of the union legally with others of the same gender can still be Married to a woman or man opposite gender as a Constitutional right regardless of their permission. If a child is a result of medical treatment a consummation of the marriage union is still made, it is still legal consider the union consummation to marriage.

I am not praticing law....

I am protecting a United States Constitutional Right,  "to tell the truth as a government called witness"...Binivir and Unosmulier are legal identities not objected to directly, they are a nothing more that a united state to be held by all under Constitutional principle.

John_C_87

OakTownA said:

@John_C_87

I was quoting someone else. I agree that the 14th amendment means that same sex couples can get married.

Only to those of other genders...Period. Permission is not even needed if a child is created as a result if the union.... Period. Why is that? The child is born and becomes a citizen, or possibly not.If you had been a lawyer, this process could be considered then proven to be trying at tamper with a legal witness...Meaning one who is held in a United state of law by legal precedent and basic principle as it is connected to an office document for governing under law.

all4actt

@excon ; the reason Democracy does not appear in the constitution.

SkepticalOne

CYDdharta said:

SkepticalOne said:

...and why would they be authorities on the purpose of marriage? 

They're authorities on law and legal benefits.

Fallacious appeal to authority. The purpose of marriage is extra-legal. 

Now that we've established you have no clue what you're rambling on about, it is one of the governments job to protect citizens from each other. 2 men or 2 women being married is not harmful to any other married folks. Their is no reason to legislate against it.

John_C_87

@SkepticalOne

I disagree.

1.   Direct harm is a not the better explanation of why a law should be written then self-evident truth.

2.   The self-evident truth is a man and woman are married when a child is created between the couple.

3.   The harm is in the guardian’s presentation to truth as to their identity.

4.   The admission to the breaking of tranquility held is not justice by the actions of perjury taken in the writing of legislation

5.    The partnership between two men is legalized by a witness as Binivir not marriage as the State licensed Medical Doctor is being asked to be the only witness to a identification of the two parents of a United States Citizen.

6.   The partnership between two men is legalized by a witness as Unosmulier not marriage as the State licensed Medical Doctor is being asked to be the only witness to a identification of the two parents of a United States Citizen.

7.   The damages are created by all couples who cannot keep a truth truthful, this includes those couples who seek divorce.

8.   The damage created by any and all malpractice held against marriage is not limited to just harm but requires an involvement which incriminates to self-accusation of perjury.

We do not have to believe something is true, we must be able to prove something is true. This was the fact which held self-evident truth as a primary principle when the people had begun writing Constitutional law, Legislation which is to be held as united states within all courts, not one court, the one group of courts, all courts.