Marriage isn't a human right

It's always been based on public opinion, even in the 1700's.

 

Good luck with that. Ain't happening.

 

Not necessarily, while we can point to slavery/segregation as being part of that "public opinion" the debate over the commerce clause for example, is a debate on constitutional interpretation.

From the 17th-19th century, we can say that the Court was constitutionally principled if not prejudice at times.

In the 21st century? It's become a full blown diehard. I give the Court little legitimacy and absolutely little standing. It's a Kangaroo Court IMHO.

 

I agree that marriage isn't a natural right, but I disagree with your assertion that healthcare is. We are all going to die. Healthcare is at best a when, and often not even that. I do not really believe in any sort of objective "human rights" but to the extent that we want to have that concept, I do not believe that anybody should have the right to compel another to act to provide them something as would be required for healthcare to be a right.

 

Ah except the Second Amendment says no such thing.

The second amendment says "... the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
If you read militia laws created shortly thereafter the intent is clear. That is the verbiage of the Constitution, and the Supreme Curt has no authority to change the meaning of the Constitution.

 

A TREATY signed and ratified has as much of a standing as the US Constitution itself we signed a treaty and ratified it stated Marriage is a right, even the Supreme Court has no standing to refute that our government stated by signing as one political and social right is the right to marriage in pretty simple language. So stop prattling on people unless you can refute my claim its not a right according to the signed document your opinions don't matter we have a signed treaty that trumps even US law unless we remove our signature on it. So our government cannot outlaw Marriage but can define it for example they could say its a private matter and remove all privileges of marriage under tax law and become completely neutral to couples or multiple people marrying. They just couldn't likely ban all states and forms of marriage. A pretty unlikely event.

 

The 14th was not part of the original bill of rights.....in fact with was ratified in the late 1860s

 

Is the right to assemble a human right? Liberty of movement? By your definition of human rights, I could see a person strapped to a table against his will with life sustaining fluids pumped into him and this could be considered a person that retains his human rights. I think your definition too limited.

 

Marriage is, as all of our human rights are, from God alone. I don't need a government to sanctify my marriage. I could really care less what the government or anyone else thinks about my marriage. It's between me, my wife and God.

 

The government doesn't sanctify your marriage.. they just record it.

If you decide to break your marriage contract.. they just don't want the expense of raising your children.

 

Actually there are many in government that do want the expense of raising your children. Why not? They're not paying for it.

 

Domestic law 101............

 

You don't seem to understand. The Constitution, not any signed treaty, but the Constitution is supreme.

Really? Let's test you theory. Let's say FDR was Buddy-Buddy with Hitler and signed a treaty with Germany to participate in the final solution, and round up and gas anyone on the "list." Would that treaty have as "much of a standing as the US Constitution itself?"

Of course not because the "treaty" would violate multiple laws and Constitutional protections against such things. Treaties that do not violate any part of the Constitution are equal in authority to the Constitution, but no treaty can violate or amend the Constitution. Marriage is a state sanctioned activity, not a federal sanctioned activity. How can the federal government agree to somehow regulate that which they don't control?

 

Loving was PRE Baker/Nelson though.

Now a LIBERTY under the 14th AM has never been defined enough to not have litigation, but we are entitled to the "pursuit of happiness" by Constitutional law, and to Marry is one LIBERTY, however, as pointed out, such is RARELY absolute.

 

Actually you are wrong, none of the things you mentioned are rights. So what is the point of this thread?

 

Actually it says "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free nation, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

You simply edit it to make it seem like you are right. Typical right ring tactic.

That could easily be interpreted to mean that all gun owners are required to serve in a well regulated militia, since it's the SOLE reason given for the right to bear arms.

 

Only the right believes they don't have to love their republic as much as they claim to love their guns; on a potentially not-for-profit basis, to be necessary to the security of a free State.

 

Actually, according to federal law, all able bodied men between the ages of 18 and 45 are actually members of the US Militia. And "well regulated" in 1787 meant "well trained".

 

Well regulated is defined by our federal Congress and codified in the relevant statue concerning the Militia of the United States.

 

There is no appealing to ignorance regarding our supreme law of the land:

 

You are wrong. 10 USC 301 defines the militia, and is still in effect. Although I was wrong about the age, it wasn't 18, it starts at 17.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

I'll await your retraction and apology.

 

The militia act of 1903 offically merged the Militia of the United States with the National Guard. It allowed the National Guard to be used by the federal government to handle all Militia activities. The US Militia is no longer open to regular civilians.

 

You are just plain mistaken. Or intentionally lying. 10 USC 301 remains the law of the land.

 

Only if the Militia Act of 1903 is unconstitutional.