• abraxas
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is a circular argument.

    Non Sequitur. Nothing you say after this claim attempts to impeach me of circular reasoning. Do you know what a circular argument is?

    You’re making the erroneous claim that marriage is defined in the constitution

    So you agree that the Constitution has nothing in it that says Marriage is between a man and a woman? Because then there is nothing in it to temper Equal Protections from applying to gay marriage. Or do you believe state and federal law should supersede the rights enshrined in the Constitution?

    That means it falls to the states.

    The Constitution also doesn’t define “Speech” or “Crime” or hell, “State”.

    The courts allowing gay marriage is a misstep by the courts which hopefully the current court will correct as they did with roe.

    Annnnnd the truth comes out. Welcome to my block list.

    • Neuromancer@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Ah so you think the courts should create law. Good to know.

      Maybe you should learn how our government functions. Congress creates law. The courts interpret the laws.

      I see why you’re so befuddled now. You don’t get how the system works. You think the courts should just create laws and ignore congress.

      Congress needs to get off their ass. It’s that simple.