- Joined
- May 1, 2013
- Messages
- 119,717
- Reaction score
- 75,680
- Location
- Outside Seattle
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Independent
County officials in both Boulder, Colorado and St. Louis, Missouri issued licences yesterday in order to challenge their respective state's bans.
St. Louis Challenges Missouri Ban on Gay Marriage - ABC News
Boulder County Clerk begins issuing same-sex marriage licenses after historic court ruling - 7NEWS Denver TheDenverChannel.com
They have also in the past struck down marriage bans on the basis of a person not paying their child support (Zablocki v Redhail) and being incarcerated (Turner v Safley). They were both held to the lowest level of scrutiny. Same sex marriage bans should be held to the heightened level of intermediate if we are holding that interracial marriage bans were based on race because same sex marriage bans are based on sex, not sexuality. That requires an important state interest. "Because the people of the state want this" is not and should not ever be "an important state interest". In fact, it shouldn't even be considered a legitimate state interest since it could easily justify pretty much an violation of people's rights that are not specifically listed within the US Constitution, something that is not supposed to happen.
And the people of Indiana and Utah lose. Not supposed to be this way.
1.)That's right, the will of the people no longer matters in this country.
2.) And when you're done here, there will be another issue you'll be eager to claim has something to do with equal rights.
3.) Anyone who opposes you will be labeled bigots or whatever.
That's right, the will of the people no longer matters in this country. And when you're done here, there will be another issue you'll be eager to claim has something to do with equal rights. Anyone who opposes you will be labeled bigots or whatever.
Did the will of the people matter during Jim Crow? During women's suffragette? This is a matter of equal protection under the law...it is not subject to state discretion.
Did the will of the people matter during Jim Crow? During women's suffragette? This is a matter of equal protection under the law...it is not subject to state discretion.
And the people of Indiana and Utah lose. Not supposed to be this way.
That's right, the will of the people no longer matters in this country. And when you're done here, there will be another issue you'll be eager to claim has something to do with equal rights. Anyone who opposes you will be labeled bigots or whatever.
And the people of Indiana and Utah lose. Not supposed to be this way.
That's right, the will of the people no longer matters in this country. And when you're done here, there will be another issue you'll be eager to claim has something to do with equal rights. Anyone who opposes you will be labeled bigots or whatever.
And the people of Indiana and Utah lose. Not supposed to be this way.
That's right. The constitution supersedes the will of the people in this country. Sorry this troubles you so much.
As for being labeled bigots, if your guys have the right to say homosexuals are an abomination before God, I have the right to call them a bigot in response. The best part is that neither of us have the right to use the government to enforce our belief onto the other.
Perfect.
Tell me what they lost. What impact will this have on their lives?
Another cut in the death of a thousand cuts to the US Constitution. Want to legalize homosexual marriage? Amend the Constitution to make it a right instead of getting there through the backdoor and amending through judicial fiat. THEN the 14th would apply and you'd have made the constitution and the country a stronger place.
The will of the people is always subject to the restrictions of the US Constitution. You cannot deny people rights guaranteed by the US Constitution just because you want to or you voted to do so. That isn't how our system of government works or ever was supposed to work.
Another cut in the death of a thousand cuts to the US Constitution. Want to legalize homosexual marriage? Amend the Constitution to make it a right to marry instead of getting there through the backdoor and amending through judicial fiat. THEN the 14th would apply and you'd have made the constitution and the country a stronger place.
Stop amending the text of the US Constitution through judicial decision.
It is already a right. What is wrong with you guys and believing that every single right that individual citizens (not states) have has to be explicitly written in the Constitution? That is the entire point of the 9th and even 10th Amendments to state that no they don't need to be written in there to be rights.
And there is currently no right to marriage in the US Constitution outside of judicial rewrite/reimaging of what words mean.
Ahahahaha, so basically what you're saying is that every activity known to man has to be listed in the constitution by name before it can be legal. Nice.
Because the ones not mentioned in the US Constitution can and are written in STATE constitutions. Remember that whole United States thing? The backbone of the US Constitution.
And the 10th says they leave the hands of the federal constitution and the power passes to the STATES and the PEOPLE. Not the courts.
Yes there is because we have all the rights to begin with as citizens. What part of this Amendment do you not understand?
9th Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
That tells us that we do have that right. The only right people are trying to make up is this "right" to maintain the "traditional" definition of marriage. That is not a right at all.
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?