How do you figure? You obivously have never read the document, nor paid attention to the loop holes they wrote themselves.
It is necessary, and proper, to exlclude faggots from any sort of assitance, help, means or anything else.
Ugh. the "Necessary and proper" clause. The liberal wet dream.
I'll admit, this abused clause is one reason that I prefer the Articles of Confederation. Nonetheless, it doesn't matter since the 10th amendment trumps it if it means anything near what you think it means. Since "Necessary and Proper" says that the Feds have powers (And ill defined ones at that) that do not specifically appear in the constitution, and the 10th amendment trumps this view.
Well aren't you just stupid?
To make any ruling on same sex marriage without criminalizing homosexuality as a whole is not a ruling in my favor.
Of course, you'd have to also say that if they ruled the punishment to be anything less than death, they are also not "ruling in your favor".
I'd nonetheless assume that you'd prefer a ruling that prohibits SSM, however much more you might want them to do, to one that allows it.
It is of the utmost ignorance to believe there is never anything for which there must necessarily be a federal mandate that the states/provinces/etc. must follow.
You have to explain why, but besides, I never said that. I said that
marriage was not something that required a Federal mandate. I don't think it even needs a mandate from any government, but that goes further than we can go with the constitution alone.
The states aren't provinces either, and the terms are not interchangeable. I suspect you're an "indivisible" kind of guy based on your comment, which I find odd considering you are also a theonomist.
http://www.forerunner.com/theonomy/theofaq.html
See #2 under "Common questions."
I will note, although you probably already know this, that I am not a theonomist, although I do believe there are some principles in Old Testament Jewish Law that make far, far more sense than modern principles which humanistic man has come up with in their place. Nonetheless, it seems like theonomists, according to this link anyway, support local government primarily by families and churches. So while we may disagree on what laws should be enforced by local government, and in what manner, it seems that you should agree with me that the Federal government needs to be drastically put back into place.
Having not read it I can't say if I would have supported such a thing.
Did it state: "No homos can't get married; homosexuality is criminally insane"?
No, it doesn't. And that would go beyond anythin the constitution allows the Federal government to do.