Quote:If you're not going to respond to the post that i made then why quote me? Did i say it was simply a matter of scale or did i articulate the difference between democracy and judicial tyranny?


And again the constitution doesnt say anything about gay marriage. If it Did then it would be a different ball game. It does however say that all powers not expressly spelled out in the constitution would be reserved by the states. So again five guys making a unilateral decree for all fifty states because the left is loosing at the ballot box is activism.

The 14th amendment doesn't say anything about black people either. Nor does the 1st amendment say anything about Native Americans. The Fourth Amendment doesn't mention Hispanics and the second doesn't mention whites. In fact, the Constitution does a quite wonderful job of speaking generalities when it comes to people it applies to. No doubt this was done intentionally to avoid this exact argument.

 

And people like to throw out the 10th Amendment whenever it suits their argument but if you'd actually brother to read the bloody thing you'd know the 10th actually furthers my argument. to save you the bother of looking it up, here's the text of the 10th Amendment:

 

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. (Emphasis added by me)

 

See the "prohibited by it to the States" part? That's rather important because that helps enforce the 14th Amendment. See, the 14th prohibits unequal treatment under the law only referring to "any person within its jurisdiction". Since marriage is a contract whose terms are determined by the laws by the state and federal governments. To deny such a contract based on sexual orientation is to enforce unequal treatment something specifically prohibited by the 14th Amendment. 

---