And since the 14th amendment has yet to be repealed, the law in question violates the constitution. You definitely aren't getting sufficient votes to repeal the 14th.
And since the 14th amendment has yet to be repealed, the law in question violates the constitution. You definitely aren't getting sufficient votes to repeal the 14th.
There is no right to be viewed a certain way.
Is there some law that decides who can visit in hospitals, and if so how is this not a problem of the state?
I'm not arguing that. But the entire 14th would not have to be repealed. Just getting into place an Amendment that defined marriage as between a man and a woman would be sufficient. But I absolutely agree, there is extremely little chance of getting enough votes in the foreseeable future for such an Amendment. I was just clarifying that it is possible through voting, just not probable at all, not with our current public view about same sex marriage, which despite some people's opinion, is one of acceptance or at least tolerance.
The 14th annoys both the democrats and the republicans, no way would it be repealed.
Where do you see it annoying democrats?
Guns.
Wrong amendment. Where has the 14th even been applied to a gun control case instead of the 2nd?
Did you miss McDonald v. Chicago?
Obviously. I don't track every random court case.
Random? It is referred to as a landmark decision.
McDonald v. Chicago (08-1521) | LII / Legal Information Institute
Due process, not equal protection. And it doesn't annoy me one bit, of course the 2nd applies to states, like everything else in the bill of rights,
That is totally "unfair" to bisexuals, as they must get to marry one of each to be fair. I suggest that it is unlike race or gender since that characteristic is neither recognizable at birth, immutable nor included on a census form and, more importantly, is not mentioned by the constitution or any amendment. It is entirely a self declared characteristic, therefore no different than membership in a hum while walking club.
Getting vaccinated, riding an airplane, and using a computer are not unnatural, as they do not contradict any of the natural ends of man. And no, unnatural sexual activity isn't the only thing that should be banned, murder should be as well, as it is even more unnatural than sodomy.
Yes, the 14th amendment applies this to the states. The 14th amendment.
It annoys democrats, your alleged non-annoyance is of anecdotal concern (none). And it opens up annoyances for democrats and republicans.
I'm not sure you are responding to the right person.
I do not support state intervention (which would be "dictating the terms for everyone else").
Look up constitutional incorporation. The 2nd does apply to states, and that case you referenced upheld that.
Then you shouldn't support birth certificates or adoptions either since they serve the same main purpose as marriage does, creating a legally recognized kinship between people.
Of course it applies to the states. But why were the Chicago (democrat) lawmakers unaware of this?
Birth certificates and adoptions do not require a state.
Against SSM or marriage in general by the state?
Of course it applies to the states. But why were the Chicago (democrat) lawmakers unaware of this?
Birth certificates and adoptions do not require a state.
Legal birth certificates are issued by each state, as are adoption records. The state must recognize the parents as the legal parents of a child for them to be considered legal family.
Now, with genetic testing, we have additional means of establishing parenthood in some cases, but it can be legally restricted or even removed with legal paperwork. You cannot simply claim a child as your own and expect to hold legal say and/or custody over that child. The state is involved.
In general.
Fair enough... as long as it is equal treatment.
A birth certificate or an adoption is irrelevant of the state. I am not referencing legal anything.
This entire discussion is about legal marriage. So yes, you are discussing legal things here. And yes, birth certificates and adoptions are completely relevant to the state. A child is recognized as the legal relative, legal child of the person/persons on their birth certificate and/or adoption papers first, although other legal paperwork can counter these. And a person's legal spouse is the person on the marriage license with them (unless countered by other paperwork, aka a divorce).
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?