I really thought they were on to something with all the Bio Labs in Ukraine and Putin exposing them for creating Covid. Then nothing came of it, weird…. Maybe we’ll hear something soon about Putin exposing all of the Ukrainian sex trafficking camps that were also supposedly to cause of the war, still nothing though…
Everything you like or perceive as good is not necessarily a Constitutional right. Anti-abortion legislation is not necessarily more of an imposition of religion than murder laws. Secular cases can be made for abortion, while declaring them both rights can also be an infringement on the 1st Amendment, particularly regarding the free exercise of religion, rights of others. Something the founders definitely didn’t want was the state telling the faith which values and behaviors the faith must hold or celebrate. As per usual, if it’s so popular, and you LOVE democracy, you shouldn’t be afraid of writing it into law. I think most would support a gay marriage law, provided that nothing is forced upon religious entities.
I have to say, this thread very much reminds me of the "basket full of deplorables". Hillary did not call ALL Trump supporters deplorables. She said "you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? They're racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic." But for some reason, Trump supporters leaned in and were all like "I'm a Deplorable!" Proud to be lumped in with the true deplorables who Hillary was calling out. Now Biden has this speech where he is calling out the MAGA crowd who are doing everything they can to circumvent democracy using what ever tactics they can including violence. And you see the same response, people lining up to claim he was talking about them. Calling for Civil War because he dared to call out people calling for violence. Very strange response. One might call them triggered.
Your first point is a good one. What makes something a guaranteed right? I don’t know how to approach this question for abortion as it seems too far in the gray, but I do wonder about gay marriage. You say we could pass a gay marriage law, but what about a heterosexual marriage law? Or law allowing black, tall, or left-handed people to marry? Why do we want the state in the way of marriage at all? You seem to be thinking about the state protecting religions, but why should religious liberty trump individual liberty?
Very strange response. I don't know why they insist on identifying with those attacking our country, but that seems to be the popular choice.
Unfortunately. That is from CPAC in August. No one was even asking them to speak out against domestic terrorism, but they went out of their way to identify with domestic terrorists.
In the eyes of the United States, the Constitution, or more accurately, what the Justices on the Supreme Court say is Constitutionally protected. And as we have seen in all sorts of cases in the past like Dred Scott v. Sanford or Plessy v. Ferguson, the Court doesn't always get it right. I don't want the state involved in marriage at all. I'm just not in favor of compelling businesses or churches to recognize homosexual couples as morally equivalent. But hypothetically, yes... marriage laws, both heterosexual and homosexual, are fair game with how I interpret the Constitution. Some conservative justices say that there's a right to marriage, but the 14th Amendment doesn't necessarily broaden that to gay marriage. Obviously a number of Justices disagree with me, others probably agree. I think if the state is involved in marriage, gay marriage under generally the same ground rules as heterosexual marriage should be permitted, but on statutory grounds, not Constitutional. I also don't think such statutory grounds should infringe on the religious exercise of churches or businesses. In a nutshell, there is a whole lot of deplorable things I believe the Constitution allows. To me, it is by nature a narrow document that protects very specific things, and it offers a layout of how the government is to operate. It shouldn't trump "individual liberty," though I can make a case that "religious liberty" is "individual liberty," but to avoid a semantic argument with you... I'll go to the crux of the point. I do not believe that the ability to perform an abortion is a "liberty" in the Constitution. Same with same-sex marriage. Both Obergefell and Roe broaden the definition of liberty to permit abortions and same-sex marriage, even if it's at the expense of the liberty of another: churches, democratic principles of federalism, the unborn, religious small business owners, etc. One of my main critiques of liberal justices is that they often use ill-defined or ambiguous terms like "liberty" and both broaden it and narrow it at their whim to suit their desires, even if they believe what they desire is righteous. By the standards of a Justice Breyer for example, "liberty" can basically mean whatever he wants it to mean. I find the conservative justices to be more anchored, albeit imperfect, which leads to more predictable judicial outcomes in the long-term, which is what you want, in my opinion.
I'm honestly more socially liberal than a lot of posters here probably think. I just value the preservation of religious liberty and institutions... and avoiding the stigmatization of traditional religious values in the culture, over social and cultural progressivism. And half of modern social progressivism seems to me about hating traditional values, primarily that of Christianity. I'm not saying you're like that, I'm saying I see that all the time.
Speaking of everything you like not being in the Constitution, baby-killing WAS found lurking in the shadowy penumbra of the ancient writ.
