Allow me to explain the concept of rights, because “we” do not generally see rights as simply being limitations on governmental power.
First, you need to remember the social contract, which was the starting point for the Founding Fathers, and the justification for the American Revolution:
an implicit agreement among the members of a society to cooperate for social benefits, for example by sacrificing some individual freedom for state protection. Theories of a social contract became popular in the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries among theorists such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, as a means of explaining the origin of government and the obligations of subjects.
Individual rights are intrinsic to being human. We trade off some of those freedoms to enjoy state protection, but that does not mean all rights are owned by the state upon its formation.
Just read the wording of the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
The Constitution provided a framework for a new social contract, according certain powers to the Federal government, with the rest to be determined by individuals and the state governments those individuals create.
The Bill of Rights were written to establish even clearer protections for individual liberties, in addition to specific prohibitions on governmental power.
The Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights specifically guarantees the right of privacy. That means what I do in my bedroom or decide with my doctor is nobody’s business but mine.
The Ninth Amendment states that other rights may exist aside from the one explicitly mentioned and even though they are not listed, it does not mean they can be violated. It is a cautionary measure to prevent increasing the power of the government, and by extension that includes state governments.
The Tenth Amendment states “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” It does not say specifically which, if any of these rights, belong to the states; it uses the same assumption of a social contract in which the individuals of a state come together to decide on how to govern themselves.
Civil Rights were added to our national dialogue to address the continued discrimination and inequality that affect large parts of society, and often in particular states:
Civ·il rights, noun
- the rights of citizens to political and social freedom and equality.
I don’t even know why you mention spiritual law, when I already pointed out that there are gay ministers and some religions that perform same sex marriages. Is your religious belief somehow more important than theirs?
But let’s be even more clear about why this point is completely irrelevant to our discussion, unless your hope is to establish Christian Sharia law in this country.
The separation of Church and State was a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson, one of the influential framers of the Constitution and the First Amendment. And the Supreme Court has ruled on multiple occasions using the argument that “the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between Church and State.’”
From an article on the separation of Church and State:
It should also be noted that of the 112 Supreme Court Justices, none of them has been an atheist. In fact 92 pecent of them were Christian. What rationale would these justices have for making laws that would create a legal prejudice towards their system of beliefs, especially if the separation of Church and State is a misinterpretation?
The science is clear: Children raised by same-sex parents are at no disadvantage
But what about the children? The debate over gay marriage-addressed this week by the US Supreme Court but by no means…
“I found overwhelming evidence that scientists agree that there is not a negative impact to children of same-sex couples,” says Jimi Adams, a sociologist at the University of Colorado at Denver and co-author of the paper.
Apparently you are quoting scientific fact based on a few outliers, such as the “study” done by a Catholic priest.