I'm surprised that it's never been brought up, but it seems pretty cut and dry to me.

As I see it, there is a clear contradiction between the two. Have our politicians (Republicans in this case) ever sat down and actually read the bill of rights.

Someone tell me, just when did the Bill of Rights ever become "the 10 suggestions"?

Let's ban guns, ban gay marriage, ban religious speech at high school graduations, ban offensive books at libraries, etc... Am I the only one who sees how all of those are related?

I'm not sure I see how the 9th amendment is related - from what I can tell the 9th amendment pretty much says that laws can not be created or destroyed simply with the argument of "well, it doesn't say that in the constitution!"
Maybe you're seeing a different angle than I am...

In this case, the constitution would be used to deny a right retained by the people (marriage), which is currently a set in stone right in some areas of the U.S.

Using the constitution to deny a right is political blasphemy.

Using the constitution to deny a right is political blasphemy.

They see it as their "right" to regulate other people's marriages, so not having a ban on gay marriage is, to them, a violation of their "right".

It's a bit twisted. (I've asked a bunch of them, and that's the short verion of their 'logic').

They see it as their "right" to regulate other people's marriages, so not having a ban on gay marriage is, to them, a violation of their "right".

It's a bit twisted. (I've asked a bunch of them, and that's the short version of their 'logic').

Excellent!
And, when this logic is used, then it is their religious right that they base this desire to ban gay marriage, and therefore this religious right that they claim to retain happens to be based on the 1st amendment, and therefore cannot be used to deny the rights of others.

Indeed it is twisted.

The federal government has no business even debating gay marraige. It should be left to the states and/or the people per the 9th amendment.

The federal government has no business even debating gay marraige. It should be left to the states and/or the people per the 9th amendment.

That'd be the 10th. But you're still right either way.

I can buy that. Misinterpretation of the original intent of the constitution and the bill of rights have rendered the 9th and 10th almost worthless.

I blame Edward Rutledge personally.
If he and his cronies hadn't pushed to continue slavery in the U.S. just before we declared independence, we could have avoided the civil war, which unintentionally destroyed state sovereignty.

The right to marry the (adult, consenting) partner of one's choice is a right retained by the people, a universal right of Man as affirmed by Loving v. Virginia.

The right to deny that right to others is expressly not a right held by the people, as also affirmed by Loving v. Virginia. It's clear that the people of the state of Virginia wished to deny marriage to Richard Perry Loving and Mildred Jeter.

As the high court ruled, that popular desire was trumped by the Constitution.

I'm surprised that it's never been brought up, but it seems pretty cut and dry to me.

As I see it, there is a clear contradiction between the two. Have our politicians (Republicans in this case) ever sat down and actually read the bill of rights.

Someone tell me, just when did the Bill of Rights ever become "the 10 suggestions"?

Let's ban guns, ban gay marriage, ban religious speech at high school graduations, ban offensive books at libraries, etc... Am I the only one who sees how all of those are related?

It should be an issue left to the states, (unless the laws are ruled unconstitutional). We have quite enough real world issues right now to focus on, and don't need to saddle our federal govt with time wasting, do nothing bs at the exclusion of all.....else.

Wait, I retract that. I kind of like it when Congress does'nt do anything. It saves me money.

The states don't have the right to interfere with a federally-determined universal right.

Here's a testimonial from me, Danger Mouse: "I'd love to see you raped in prison, scum-hole."

I don't have anything against you personally, but if it's good enough for Truth Teller, it's good enough for me.

The feds don't have the power to give or remove the right to gay marraige.

The states don't have the right to interfere with a federally-determined universal right.

Here's a testimonial from me, Danger Mouse: "I'd love to see you raped in prison, scum-hole."

I don't have anything against you personally, but if it's good enough for Truth Teller, it's good enough for me.

Oh f u c k yes....another endorsement! I'm guessing you must be one of the teflon few, for whom the rules do not apply?

If it makes you happy, it can't be that bad.

The feds don't have the power to give or remove the right to gay marraige.
A brief review of constitutional law:

1. Rights are not "given," they are recognized.

2. All existing rights are not explicitly established formally in the Constitution. Nonetheless, they are still rights.

3. All universal human rights are incorporated into the Constitution and thus must be respected by the individual states vis a vis the 14th Amendment.

4. The Supreme Court has established marriage to the partner of one's choice as exactly such a universal human right. It is therefore binding on the states.

If it makes you happy, it can't be that bad.

Your refusal to answer my question will be taken as a 'yes'.

And has it dawned on you yet that I agreed with you? Just wondering....liberals generally tend to pick up on things, once they're beaten over the head with it for a while.

It had nothing to do with what you said or you as a person. I just wanted to be included in your list of endorsements.