Droopy wrote:Again Rollo assumes the existence of fictitious and, as of yet, undemonstrated constitutional "rights" that never entered the heads of the founders.
Equal protection certainly entered their heads. And from that we got Loving v. Virginia and In re Marriage Cases.
The fictitious "right" to homosexual marriage is of precisely the same logical, legal, and philosophical weight as the equally phantasmal "penumbras" and "emanations" that were said to lurk within the Constitution and were conjured from their ancient slumbers to support Roe.
It's called the right to privacy, and it's the only thing that protects boneheads like you.
Interesting too is that in the last 25 years or so it has almost been exclusively homosexual "rights" groups that burst into churches, assault parishioners, throw condoms at them, deface churches with spray paint and vicious graffiti, and violate the actual constitutional rights of others to speak, assemble, and support openly that which they believe to be right.
None of which compares to the murder and violence inflicted on homosexuals by those heterosexual paragons of virtue.
Rollo is such a typical liberal in that he doesn't understand what the constitution actually says, and even worse, doesn't really care. His constitution is the "living document"; the bastard offspring of critical legal theory and the Nietzscheization of western culture.
The U.S. Supreme Courts says what the Constitution actually says. That's the judiciary system set up by our "leftist" Founding Fathers. So blame them, Loran.
The only important thing is that he baths continually in his own moral pomposity and attacks the motives and character of those who disagree with him because he really doesn't have any philosophically or legally substantive arguments to make, which is another reason he relies exclusively on case law and legal precedent, rather than the original intent of the Constitution itself, and why he hurls moral invective at opponents of homosexual marriage and substitutes bare assertion for logical argumentation.
I rely on case law and legal precendent because, for the the umpteenth time for Loran's benefit, the judiciary was set up by the Founding Fathers to interpret the Constitution, which is precisely what has been done. The actual language of the Constitution is equal protection under law. That means the gov't set up by the Founding Fathers cannot discriminate, even against idiots like you.
This is all he has , as the Constitution doesn't support him or the movement he supports.
The judiciary interpreting the Constitution says otherwise, and the bigots disagree. I'm glad I'm on the side of the judiciary, and I am certain you will always be on the side of bigotry.