"None of that is protected by our Constitution. American laws against polygamy, child-marriage and incest do not run afoul of the Constitution." Mr. Blackwell

The Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and The Ten Commandments of Almighty God are the Triune Pillars of this Republic. The basis of our "Christian Nation, Supreme Court Case, 1892" was the Bible. And that is what the enemies of America want removed from our Nation. It is the Bible and God they want US to exclude from this "Christian Nation."

It isn't in the "Enumerated powers" of the Constitution that the Federal level is to be "settling this issue". It is a State issue. All "Marriage issues" were settled at the State level and passed to the Local Level prior to all this "upheaval."

I think California under their 10th Amendment Rights settled the question on TWO referendums from the People of the State of California. It is the "radical judges" that are "out of jurisdiction" who make these "rulings" contrary to the Referendum of the People of the States.

I don't see in the "enumerated powers" any suggestion that the United States Constitution, Federal level, has any business "deciding this issue" The "jurisdiction" resides with the State.

The "jurisdictional question" is becoming very critical. By violating "jurisdiction" these "radical judges" are making rulings that they have no right to decide. The judges are "Out of bounds". If they can not clearly see that they have "NO JURISDICTION"(by a basic reading of the Constitutions to which they are under solemn oath to "uphold and defend") it is the power of the people and the legislature to IMPEACH.

I am only a commoner, but some things are obvious.

For God & Country

The American

It is The Declaration of Independence, The Articles of Confederation, and The Ten Commandments that set presedance in America, The Constitution of September 17th 1787 was never properly adopted by a government and therefore becomes an Employment agreement with all representatives and officers of the United States, The property owned by or ceded to The United States of America, The Confederacy.

We will never get it untill we understand that fact.

Let's remind all between now and November that Obamonomics, aka, Communist ideology, does not work in America.

1 Trillion Dollars of tax payer money socialized health care, bank and business takeovers, did nothing for unemployment, did nothing to stimulate jobs, and only resulted in business stagnation, fear and layoffs.

But a caveat to the above, that is, unless you were a union or federal government worker. That should tell the American people who is in office. He is not an extreme liberal, but a Communist in wanting.

Please remind everyone, liberals, independents, and conservatives that $1 Trillion Dollars of tax-payer money did nothing for American Capitalism.

RUTH ANN is correct. This issue is to the states under the 9th and 10th amendments. As the ten commandments is to the individual, gay marriage is to the people. Same with the Mosque issue, it is a moral judgement made by the people, not the courts. A right is something that is written and given to everyone, but does not have to be provided, ie; health care, or Gov't bail out. These are the same people who defy the commen good yet use the exact same system to promote theirs. When the criminal has more rights than the one whom the crime was committed against is absurd.

Gays CAN marry each other within the existing law. Though it sounds like a technicality to say gay men can marry gay women it does destroy the argument that they can't marry because they are gay. They cannot marry, in fact, due to gender choice, defined as opposite in marriage law.

A similar politicization occurred as soon as AIDS broke. A very successful lobby launched a preemptive strike against "imprisoning" "gays." Lies come in pairs so they can mate. Quarantine is not a prison though it is separation for the sake of the uninfected. And it's because they had AIDS, not because they were gay. Remember the soon to be unveiled "AIDS is not a gay disease?"

As a result of the greatest public health disaster in history caused by incompetence and political interference, 25 million people to date have died of AIDS.

Sorry Terry, you're wrong when you say "A right is something that is written and given to everyone..." If a right can be given it can be taken away. No. Rights are "unalienable... endowed by their Creator."

Marriage is about taking care of the children. The adults can take care of themselves. Any deviation into "morality" is a legal non-starter. While there are 10th Amendment issues, the fact is that the Federal Government regulates Social Security, inheritance, and other areas of law, and those laws include the word "marriage". That is the actual target.

The compelling government interest in regulating traditional marriage is to protect the children - i.e. future taxpayers. Adults are fully capable of taking care of themselves outside of marriage, especially if they do not have children to support.

Historically, widows without support were unable to care for their children. Orphans of the street tend to become criminals. They face a life of crushing poverty. That is the compelling government interest. For this reason, we (or our parents) agreed to pass Social Security during the Depression - it was to take care of the old, the widows, and the orphans.

Now come the gays and lesbians who, due to their urban lifestyle, tend to be more wealthy. They are well-organized. Their voice is out-sized compared to their actual numbers. They wish to claim the benefits granted to those who do the hard work of raising children, and elbow these weaker ones out of their way.

Meanwhile, who speaks for the old, the widowed, and the orphans? They are struggling just to make ends meet, and have no time or resources to organize politically, go to rallies, or even call their Congress. It's inherently unfair. They need a voice.

Ruth Ann, try reading Article 6 of the Constitution: "...no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

My understanding is that Vaughn is a homosexual. If so, there would be nothing magical about his ruling: it is a direct conflict of interest. And if so this is obviously a solid case of judicial perversion and, would once upon a time, have been a crime. But since the new world order coming out of Washington is to reward the law-breakers and punish the law-keepers, a distorted set of arguments complete the shame. As Hitler practiced, tell a big enough lie and everyone will believe it. The only labyrinth of twisted reasoning here is what goes on in the heads of the American public to continue swallowing this s---. But let's make sure we never let the actual facts get in the way of agendas.

The larger issue is that one gay judge overruled the will of the people. In a republic, this should not be allowed to happen. November's elections are much more than defeating the Obama agenda.

I think that Ruth Ann hits the issue squarely on the head with her comment. Most of our enemies, both external and internal, fundamentally recognize what many conservatives seem to have forgotten: that the basis of our Christian Nation is the Bible. And that is what our enemies want removed from our Nation. It is the Bible and the LORD of heaven and earth that they want us to exclude from our discussion. Any arguments we try to front that exclude this fundamental basis of our laws and our constitution are doomed to failure. We need Christian pastors to teach this to their congregations, and be willing to speak out publicly on this issue.

One of the greatest blasphemies committed by the ancient Israelites was to ask that God put a king over them just like all the other nations. For all those anti-constitutionalists out there who have made government their god, this obamanation's for you. Since the elites like him know that you are NOT capable of governing yourselves, welcome to slavery anew. Only this time, there will be NO emancipation.

Mr. Blackwell, does your litmus test make any sense?

The Founding Fathers did not set down a set of acceptable and unacceptable options. They set down a set of principles.

For example, the Founding Fathers likely didn't care about interracial marriage or black marriage; certainly, it was foreign to the set of ideas they brought to the table. In fact, such acts were either illegal or restricted for many years.

So, according to your test, do you have the right to marry? No. The Founding Fathers didn't explicitly set down that right so you do not have it.

Does that sound American to you?

Or does it sound better to let two consenting adults make a personal choice?

And to those claiming America is a Christian nation, which I do not protest, do non-Christians have the right to religion? If America is based on Christianity, aren't all other religions in conflict with this?

Or is America based on the Christian ideal of self-determination?

Can America be Christian while supporting other faiths? Clearly, the Founding Fathers thought so.