Please paste into your computer:
http://cnsnews.com/commentary/cnsne...constitutional-resistance-obergefell-v-hodges
Comment:
This is the latest group of anti-same-sex marriage acolytes who, however, in this incarnation are a bunch of actual legal scholars and philosophers and other real university-supported intellectuals. They are arguing that government officials should nullify the decision by refusing to acknowledge it and put it into practice.
The weakness of their argument is that they are doing precisely what should be done in front of the Supreme Court when arguing a case.
What they seem to want to argue away is that all Supreme Court decisions are the products of human-made reasoning through whichever case law and precedents and chosen oberte dicte (other examples of discourse that a justice can cite to make a point). This means that the US Constitution is a living document subject to the interpretation of those Supreme Court justices who live in the time a case is being argued and decided. The only timelessness is that which any single Supreme Court justice or any group of Supreme Court justices choose to argue as such.These legal scholars and historians and philosophers forget that slavery was written in as protected type of property in the US Constitution and that slavery was only expunged from the US Constitution by the 13th 14th and 15th Amendments which means that these alterations could be overturned and the Dred Scott decision of the Taney Court could be cited as stating that Blacks or people of African ancestry were never intended to be citizens of the US nor were people with any American Indian nation ancestry nor were people of Mexican ancestry.
They also forget that same sex marriage does not mean "gay" marriage unless one considers marriage to be a sexual relations contract, which they do when they argue that marriage was a co-habitational and implied act of coitus for procreation between a man and a woman. These ar some prurient sick bastards and yet they do have some truth if we consider that in most parts of the world women can still be sold off and traded for marriage and coitus as young as the age of 8 years old.
http://cnsnews.com/commentary/cnsne...constitutional-resistance-obergefell-v-hodges
Comment:
This is the latest group of anti-same-sex marriage acolytes who, however, in this incarnation are a bunch of actual legal scholars and philosophers and other real university-supported intellectuals. They are arguing that government officials should nullify the decision by refusing to acknowledge it and put it into practice.
The weakness of their argument is that they are doing precisely what should be done in front of the Supreme Court when arguing a case.
What they seem to want to argue away is that all Supreme Court decisions are the products of human-made reasoning through whichever case law and precedents and chosen oberte dicte (other examples of discourse that a justice can cite to make a point). This means that the US Constitution is a living document subject to the interpretation of those Supreme Court justices who live in the time a case is being argued and decided. The only timelessness is that which any single Supreme Court justice or any group of Supreme Court justices choose to argue as such.These legal scholars and historians and philosophers forget that slavery was written in as protected type of property in the US Constitution and that slavery was only expunged from the US Constitution by the 13th 14th and 15th Amendments which means that these alterations could be overturned and the Dred Scott decision of the Taney Court could be cited as stating that Blacks or people of African ancestry were never intended to be citizens of the US nor were people with any American Indian nation ancestry nor were people of Mexican ancestry.
They also forget that same sex marriage does not mean "gay" marriage unless one considers marriage to be a sexual relations contract, which they do when they argue that marriage was a co-habitational and implied act of coitus for procreation between a man and a woman. These ar some prurient sick bastards and yet they do have some truth if we consider that in most parts of the world women can still be sold off and traded for marriage and coitus as young as the age of 8 years old.