=how about you cut the BS and answer the question.

All powers granted to government must be SPECIFICALLY listed in both the federal Constitution as well as the various state Constitutions. If a power is not specifically listed in the federal Constitution or in a state Constitution that means that the government does NOT have this power.

=That’s your interpretation. Yet the 10th Amendment says anything not reserved for the federal government or prohibited by the states are left up to the states and to the people. And marriage isn’t discussed in the US Constitution. So the states and the people can decide on it.

I have NEVER seen a state Constitution that gives the government the power to establish a state religion or to say who can marry who or to even license marriage. State licensing of marriage is therefore UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

=Again what religion are we endorsing by state governments banning gay marriage?

And on the matter of licenses there’s this:

“Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.”

-Article 4 Sec. 1 of the US Constitution.

=Or promoting/allowing to promote ones political agenda.

Judicial activism is when a judge makes a decision that is AGAINST the Constitution (state or federal).

=So prohibiting the states from deciding on gay marriage is against the 10th Amendment.

For instance, it was judicial activism when a judge in California threw out Proposition 187 which would have denied welfare benifits for illegal aliens. The reason that this was judicial activism was because THERE IS NO RIGHT TO COLLECT WELFARE BENIFITS AND THE ALIENS IN QUESTION VIOLATED FEDERAL LAW. So therefore I would call this a case of judicial activism because the judge did not make a decision which was in compliance with the state or federal Constitution.

=The how come the majority of state courts usually upon state bans on gay marriage, when legally challenged. If regulating marriage was against the state constitution, then it would be thrown out. And in court cases where gay marriage bans are thrown out, why doesn’t the court use the argument that the ban was unconstitutional by the said state constitution?

The federal Constitution as well as every state Constitution that I’ve ever looked at prohibits the federal governmen as well as the state governments from establishing any religion. This is the United States of America, not a theocracy.

All powers granted to government must be SPECIFICALLY listed in both the federal Constitution as well as the various state Constitutions. If a power is not specifically listed in the federal Constitution or in a state Constitution that means that the government does NOT have this power. I have NEVER seen a state Constitution that gives the government the power to establish a state religion or to say who can marry who or to even license marriage. State licensing of marriage is therefore UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

And even at the state level, such a law violates the state constitution.

“=Well you’re definally not a constitutionalist.”

I’m obviously much more of a constitutionalist than you are. I wouldn’t be suprised if you’ve never even read a state Constitution, and your grasp of the federal Constitution is lacking as well.

=The this is going against the 10th Amendment.

I’ve read several state constitutions. Stop being lazy and do some research.

=I asked you first.

Every state constitution is posted on-line. Every state constitution that I’ve ever looked at prohibits the state from establishing a religion and I’ve never seen a state constitution which says anything about requiring state licenses to marry.

=Again, which religion are we talking about, and do the state constitutions prohibit marriage licensing.

Throwing out an anti-gay marriage initiaitve because it violates sections of the state constitution that prohibit the state from establishing a religion as well as violating the sections that say that individuals have a right to liberty is NOT judicial activism, it is DEFEDING THE CONSTITUTION AND INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY.

Judicial activism is when a judge makes a decision that is AGAINST the Constitution (state or federal). For instance, it was judicial activism when a judge in California threw out Proposition 187 which would have denied welfare benifits for illegal aliens. The reason that this was judicial activism was because THERE IS NO RIGHT TO COLLECT WELFARE BENIFITS AND THE ALIENS IN QUESTION VIOLATED FEDERAL LAW. So therefore I would call this a case of judicial activism because the judge did not make a decision which was in compliance with the state or federal Constitution.

=The federal government really doesn’t have the right to do that, the 10th Amendment leaves that to the states.

I consider such a law to be authoritarian.

=Well you’re definally not a constitutionalist

Yes, no state government should be in the business of requiring or even issueing marriage licenses and polygamy should be legal in all 50 states, as should prostitution and pornography.

“=But which states are we talking about Andy? Remember not all state constitutions are the same.”

I’ve read several state constitutions. Stop being lazy and do some research. Every state constitution is posted on-line. Every state constitution that I’ve ever looked at prohibits the state from establishing a religion and I’ve never seen a state constitution which says anything about requiring state licenses to marry.

=States cannot violate the said amendments and articles in the US Constitution that applies to the citizen and the general public. Everything else is constitutional fair game.

=And the arguments that gay marriage would corrupt the American family or warp society even further then it is, are not necessarily religious arguments. Even athiests and agonstics might agree on with such beliefs on social-scientific terms.

=Your idea of government is unconstitutional itself.

=Ok then, as a example, how about the Nevada State Constitution, cite the Article, Amendment or paragraph that backs up your point.

=And what specific religion is it endorsing by banning gay marriage?
Remember too- even some athiests and agnostics favor bans or regulation of gay marriage.

=How are you specifically going to do that Andy? Even politicians from the Left anf Right wouldn’t allow your views become law. Even people like me, and the Establishment wouldn’t let your views become reality.
And even if they did, what about people who refuse to conform to such laws? Or groups of people or states that wouldn’t uphold your laws, what then?

March 30th, 2007 at 10:58 am
Andy,
“People who advocate such a law are the ones who are acting as fascists/authoritarians.”
That statement lost it for me. Sorry.”

So you think that it is OK for the government to pass laws dictating who can enter into voluntary relationships with who and what they can call those voluntary relationships? I consider such a law to be authoritarian.

So in other words Cody believes that tyranny is OK as long as it is done at the state level.

April 2nd, 2007 at 2:58 am
A Constitutional Republic would leave such matters to the states. Andy’s utopia will not.”

In our constitutional republic EVERY state constitution that I’ve ever read (and I’ve read several of them) PROHIBITS the state government from establishing a religion or even being involved in marriage. FUNNY HOW YOU KEEP IGNORING THIS POINT!

These laws that you want to get passed are UNCONSTITUTIONAL at the state level as well as the federal level.