I think they go hand in hand. My beliefs say I am commanded to tell the Good News to everyone I can. Without freedom of speech I would be jailed for it. That's why I believe the Constitution is God breathed. The Founding Fathers had the wisdom to establish both as the First Amendment. That's why it pains me to see the disrespect for the Constitution where some claim it's a right to behave abhorrently, while taking away rights that are clearly delineated in the Bill of Rights.

In Massachusetts the Supreme Court majority opinion was basically this, "Because we don't see homosexual marriage as being banned by our Mass. State Constitution we believe it to not be prohibited." Which flies in the face of the anti-sodomy laws that proceeded the Mass. State Constitution and were there long after it was ratified. Only to be brushed off by an appointed judge. Without the foundations of belief they can declare anything a right.

 

that does raise an interesting question...

how would one secure a new "right" in the year 2012 without having the original writers of the constitution present?

we can't assume that they "knew all" and could account for every possible "outcome & right" hundreds of years ago when the constitution was written.

I agree with and live by the constitution- but you have to be mindful that the entire country has evolved in the last few hundred years- and some aspects that were relevent then, might not be now...

 

A righteous man confesses through his mouth what he believes in his heart, indeed.
However a belief can be kept inside and outwardly show a difference stance.
Therefore you can have a belief and your words can hide them.
Beliefs are inside, words are outside. You cant be persecuted for something you don't express even though you believe it. But you can be if you express it. I cant break it down anymore than that.

 

So, be a hypocrite?

 

Okay, I get where you were going now. Good point.

 

if you haven't gotten it by now you never will. I made my point, now Im done with it.

 

Adding new rights to the constitution happens often. Blacks becoming a full person was a new thing in the 1800's. Women being able to vote was a new thing in the 1900's. Most changes to the constitution move in the direction of Equality. I don't think you can deny the fact that not allowing Homosexuals to get married, is a form of inequality.

Homosexual marriage is not explicitly mentioned in the constitution. A lot of things weren't, times change, the constitution changes with it... usually.

 

Blacks can't change that they are black and woman can't change that they are woman (outside of a sex change operation I guess). Homosexuality is a BEHAVIOR that is still considered abnormal by psychiatrists.

Going back to some previous arguments, why don't we therefore extend those rights to polygamists, or those who want to have sex with children. I mean we are applying our moral beliefs and laws unequally there. I don't think we're ever going to agree on this one. A sin is a sin. Abnormal behavior doesn't make it something that is a "right". Physically it's abnormal. Traditionally it's immoral and society would have fallen apart if it had been normal. It is not equal to traditional marriage in any way I can see with only the infatuation of the two individuals being common.

I'll keep my beliefs and observations and others who would like to can keep theirs. In the grand scheme of things, either we die and that's it or we die and are resurrected by Christ. I'll hedge my bet on what I didn't always believe but through many years, a lot of soul searching, and some things that are beyond explaining in the natural realms, have come to see as truth.

We'll see.

 

One change, 40 some odd million babies later that the Supreme Court did that made children in the womb suffer inequality was Roe vs. Wade where the Supreme Court basically denied babies in the womb person hood and the protections that brings. With the stroke of a pen they changed over 200 years of precedent on it's head. They basically said that the right to be protected from illegal search and seizure somehow meant that a woman can extinguish the life growing in her womb. I believe the Mass. Supreme Court and the Supreme Court of the United States went in the wrong direction on these two instances. Also, more recently, saying that because the federal government can levy a tax for Obummercare, the individual mandate, that states everyone MUST have insurance, is okay. I strongly disagree that a government has the right to first tell me I MUST have insurance and then they (a board appointed by Obama) gets to decide what reasonable measures are as far as medical decisions go. To me these decisions are great examples of the "living" Constitution rather than the foundation of our country. Just be careful when you change a foundation. It can end up causing the structure to implode.

 

I dont feel that homosexuality is a behavior (with most gays). I think its the way some peoples brains are wired. Call it a birth defect, disease, whatever. Some people dont have control over our bodies and the directions they take. Like with cancer,dyslexia and turrets.