I've decided to put my views on the Constitution in this journal regarding a hotly debated subject: the legalization of homosexual marriage.
The problem with this subject will be solved by the Constitution's final interpretation on justice. As such, the Supreme Court will likely pave the way with its supremacy over all lower courts, and Congress might follow suit as well.
In my honest opinion, if homosexual marriages are legalized, the Constitution could preserve its ideas of revolutionary justice for all.
That doesn't mean I'm for homosexuality, but the law of the land is the law of the land. Justice should be held higher than personal opinion, which despite my faith otherwise, isn't worth anything when compared to earthly concepts of justice established in the Constitution. This doesn't mean I don't have faith otherwise, or that justice has overridden my personal beliefs. The same document that allows blacks the right to vote, a revolutionary idea in the post-Civil War period that it was proposed, should keep justice over all Americans.
If all my personal beliefs were established into law, you would all have some serious expectations to reach. However, we can all see that even the banning of "intoxicating liquor" doesn't work in America. Bootleggers and gangsters merely profited from a crime defined in the early 1900s.
Freedom to be free also implies freedom to suffer without punishment from the government. If there is any issue of deciding whether homosexuality is wrong, let us decide it elsewhere.
View User's Journal
grounderous' purging pad
Not that way! This is where I put random stuff that you might be interested in too.
Community Member
It main rules are rules of formality between private and public businesses. The Constitution in its Original context lays the plan thats builds, suppports and maintains those commercial entities that come together in agreement under the "spirit and letter of its law".
Personal choices about chosen situations are not a state matter.
However, criminal choices about personal choices will come under civil laws as it pertains to the rights of others and the natural laws of nature.
Affection between members of a species is not debatable, if not abusive, in a court of law.
Likewise affection does not a marriage make.
Marriage is just that..
Any other arrangements are just that.
Adoptions are adoptions.
Fostering is fostering.
Co-habitating is co-habitating
If a person wants to be a dependant of another and share in his/her wealth than it can be done under the Laws of Probate and Wills, Guardianships, and Estate Laws
Protection of the Species reigns over the pacifying needs of the species.
that is the Law, and to lead another to believe against it is delivering them into eternal damnation of one sort or another..
"I could explain the phenomenon of "homosexuality" as is defined by some of the most visible pro-or-con groups, but it is in their nature to be non-conformist and the average intelligent person comes to know the truth without definition by anyone, or anything then by that definiton of their own endowed wisdom."
I hope my statement in your private journal isn't offensive or abrupt, or authoritarian, some say that the Aries person (such as I am) are too blunt) but I would rather to have and know the truth then to hear or have a sweet lie.
I always thought the most rational of us expect the same.
StarShipAries:
FROM OUR FISHING COMMUNITY
MAINTAINING ETERNAL VIGILANCE
ASSURING REPUTABLE DEVELOPMENT