From: "John D.Wentzky" 

In news:1174448638.819863.325890{at}e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com, Anlatt the
Builder  typed:
> On Mar 20, 8:11 pm, "John D.Wentzky"

> wrote:
>> Innews:46008222$0$18887$4c368faf{at}roadrunner.com,
>> Dionisio  typed:
>>
>>> John D.Wentzky wrote:
>>
>>>> Attila  typed:
>>>>> Exactly where does the Constitution address marriage
laws?  Please
>>>>> be specific, with quotes.
>>
>>>> Where it says that the powers the states already reserved to
>>>> themselves can not be usurped by the federal government.
>>
>>> Well, if no one else has jumped on this, I will:
>>
>>> So, Mr. Wentzky, what you seem to be saying is that in those states
>>> -- yes, plural -- where the right to define marriage (or Civil
>>> Union, or whatever) has been reserved by said states to cover
>>> same-sex couples; You contend that the Feds can do nothing about it?
>>
>> If the States in question have done so legally via their own
>> Constitutionally required process, such would be true.
>> But, to my knowledge no state has done such to this date.
>>
>
> When a state supreme court declares that a restriction in law (such
> as, in this case, the restriction of marriage to mixed-sex couples) is
> unconstitutional under the state constitution, that *IS* "their own
> Constitutionally required process."

Actuallu, it isn't their Constitutionally required process.

> Courts are permitted to declare laws unconstitutional.

Wrong.

>  It's part of the checks and balances of our
> governmental system.

Wrong.

> That is exactly what happened in Massachusetts.

Most everyone knows they committed an illegal act.

> A further check is that the state can pass an amendment to the state
> constitution that would render the original law constitutional (under
> the amended constitution). This has not happened in Mass. Until and if
> it does, same-sex marriage is completely, legitimately, and
> constitutionally legal in that state.
>
> A similar case occurred on the federal level when the U.S. Supreme
> Court declared that laws forbidding interracial marriage where
> unconstitutional under the U.S. Constitution. Loving v. Virginia,
> 1964. Look it up.

Civl Rights legilsation, 14th amendment and all. Ratified Constitutional law.

> Do you think that marriages between people of different races are
> still illegal in Virginia, because it was "only a court" that
> overthrew the law?

Do you think that I am disagreeing with Constitutionally protected acts?

>>> (This should be fascinating.)
>>
>> You thought it would?
>> Maybe to you it is, but to me it is child's play.
>
> Yes, your understanding of the legal system seems to be roughly that
> of a child. Why not read something, and learn?

I have read much, and I do not agree with treason.

--- BBBS/LiI v4.01 Flag