States regularly treat citizens differently based on a host of factors. The real question is what are the acceptable grounds and degrees for that treatment. In some areas there is wider latitude than others.
Perhaps the failure here isn't Scalia's, but others in the court, and yours? This decisions over the last two days may someday be regarded a the "Dred Scott" decisions of this era.
Have you ever considered taking in a wider range of views?
Nowhere does it say "as defined by a bigoted interpretation of a specific god".
Would you be so dishonest as to deny the Judeo-Christian worldview and values of the Founders? Given the anti-Christian bigotry you so often spew I'm going to say more than likely yes.
It sure as fuck doesn't say "unalienable rights except as overruled by a ratified vote".
I'm pretty sure the Founding Fathers wouldn't have found an inalienable right to buggery in the Constitution, but it seems agreeable to you. "Gay marriage" would have been anathema. But again that is no obstacle for you to freely invent and overlook as desired.
By the way, did you notice how slavery was removed as an institution from the United States? I seem to recall there was a vote or two. The same thing with the banning and reinstatement of alcohol. Inconvenient facts here, just move along and don't look.
There exists in the modern world a legal classification of "married", which conveys upon you certain legal rights and privileges. What SCOTUS has done is say "the 14h ammendment says"
There has existed since before the founding of the American Republic a modern legal classification of married which conveys upon you certain rights and privileges. What SCOTUS has done is overthrow that.
In truth this has little to do with the 14th Amendment, that is just a convenient vehicle for the goal of creating a new institution of "gay marriage." Gay people had exactly the same rights as everyone else before that, but they wanted something different. Now they have it, and more battles will come of it. Gay marriage has hardly existed and now gay divorce is the trend. Let the celebrations begin! Gay divorce is here in all 50 states! Equality at last!
There is no religious exemption.
You take exception to religion, which is often the source of defects in your reasoning.
The same society that you complain about is the same society that just made this decision, and in a number of cases it was made by politicians. I can understand why you would question it. It is a questionable outcome.
It's easy to guess who the villains will be in fiction written by Leftists. Of course it gets more than a little pathetic when the "villainy" is fabricated.
Pot, meet kettle.
Oh, and before someone thinks they're clever by telling me that President Perry or whoever would just go back to the status quo faster than you can say "fuck you liberals!", good luck with that. The GOP only cared that it reliably delivered Florida's electoral votes, and it stopped doing that a good couple of cycles ago. It's dead, Jim.
#OccupyResoluteDesk seems concerned with squeezing all of the toothpaste out of the barn as he fades. There is a substantial chance that the country can be browbeaten sufficiently to make way for Her Majesty. There is also risk of those that still cling bitterly to pre-nanny state notions may succeed in forcing a Convention of States.
I understand your confusion since truth generally has no meaning for you. For the rest of us that there is a difference. Not counting slaves as whole people for the purposes of political representation reduced the South's representation in the House which was definitely a disadvantage. It would also reduce their say in the election of the President since the Electoral College is based on Congressional representation. That is also a disadvantage, especially with the rise of the abolitionist party known as the Republicans.
But the side effect was that the concept of slavery was BUILT INTO the Constitution.
I think it is better to state that the Constitution was written such that it both acknowledges the existence of slavery while disadvantaging it.
Quoting from your link:
To see how extremist these programs are, just consider the tactics they boast of using to achieve those ends: “false flag operations” (posting material to the internet and falsely attributing it to someone else), fake victim blog posts (pretending to be a victim of the individual whose reputation they want to destroy), and posting “negative information” on various forums.
Where do you think that is going on?
For example, I admit that the private email server was a bone-headed move by Hillary. But you amp it up to 11 by claiming that she personally managed it and intentionally destroyed it.
I'm by no means saying she personally admin'ed the thing. But if you are so simple, naive, and benighted as to think she had anything other than nefarious purpose to employing such while in office, then just go lay by your dish.
You however are still desperately looking for a way to make Hillary, Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi the causative agents of the attacks.
Alex Jones said they were all over there leading the attack!
If the aborigine drafted an IQ test, all of Western civilization would presumably flunk it. -- Stanley Garn
