- Joined
- Jan 28, 2006
- Messages
- 51,123
- Reaction score
- 15,259
- Location
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
No, and I dont agree with that anyway.Remember the part where I said it's not a blanket right to overturn any perceived inequality?
You can keep the false comparisons to Jim Crow laws, and women's suffrage was the will of the people. And no, it's not, just like abortion has nothing to do with constitutional privacy rights, because they just don't exist. It's social engineering by court decision plain and simple. You're cheering that a few robed fellows can change law, constitution and society without involving that old pesky will of the people thing.
Precisely, and in the case of homosexual marriage the states and the people have spoken. According to the US Constitution, the rights not enumerated fall to, the people and the states. And since marriage is not an enumerated right in the US Constitution, the states and the people decide.
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.
Precisely, and in the case of homosexual marriage the states and the people have spoken. According to the US Constitution, the rights not enumerated fall to, the people and the states. And since marriage is not an enumerated right in the US Constitution, the states and the people decide.
Until this current attempt to skirt constitutional process, marriage was written into every STATE constitution. A right the people granted themselves that is not enumerated by the US Constitution.
It was actualy held: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_v._Happersett because it was Constitutional, and that's why the 15th amendment was written.Women werent allowed to vote either and all the states supported that too.
Wasnt Constitutional...and so it was overturned.
It was actualy held: Minor v. Happersett - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia because it was Constitutional, and that's why the 15th amendment was written.
The Constitution is silent on marriage and so we should make an amendment defining and supporting marriage.
Only then will SSM be a 14th Amendment issue.
It was actualy held: Minor v. Happersett - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia because it was Constitutional, and that's why the 15th amendment was written.
The Constitution is silent on marriage and so we should make an amendment defining and supporting marriage.
Only then will SSM be a 14th Amendment issue.
Sure, but I don't see your point. Did you think I was denying that marriage is a right?The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. In other words, just because the constitution doesn't mention it, doesn't mean we don't have a right to it.
I dont believe marriage is/should be a right personally and I dont like that the govt is involved in it at all.
However since it accords benefits, priveleges, and legal protections to marriage, and the states issue a marriage license (contract) then it is gender discrimination to deny gays (it prohibits 2 people of the same gender from entering into that contract).
But there have been several decisions where SCOTUS does claim marriage is a right. I dont pay much attention to the details of that but it is true.
Equal rights only for select groups are not equal rights.
Anyway, pic related:
View attachment 67168830
No, and I dont agree with that anyway.
It was actualy held: Minor v. Happersett - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia because it was Constitutional, and that's why the 15th amendment was written.
The Constitution is silent on marriage and so we should make an amendment defining and supporting marriage.
Only then will SSM be a 14th Amendment issue.
Sure, but I don't see your point. Did you think I was denying that marriage is a right?
I know marriage is a right. I said it wasnt in the Constitution, not that it wasn't a right. I support marriage being put into the Constitution with an Amendment just like women's right to vote had to be.
Including all relationships which aren't otherwise harmful. Gays, polygamists, heteros, etc.And including or excluding gays?
We do need an Amendment, and another reason why is because marriage policy, like all policy, should come from the legislature, not the court.We don't need an amendment for it to be an issue protected by the constitution.
We do need an Amendment, and another reason why is because marriage policy, like all policy, should come from the legislature, not the court.
It already did come from the legislature with the 14th amendment. How is this difficult to understand? It applies to all rights, not just the ones they were thinking of the 1860s.
Thats what women thought as they brought their voting rights argument before SCOTUS.
Relying on the court to make policy is bad practice. Better to deal with unwilling states by having Congress legislate that univercal reciprocity of State marriage licences is a condition of recieving education and highway funding.
I know you people like to think that SSM is about indivigual rights, but that was never true. Thats the elotional appeal you're told to manipulate you. SSM, like many other issues, is about eroding States rights. Government has never, does not, and will never give a **** about your 'rights'. The government only cares about controling you.
Thats what women thought as they brought their voting rights argument before SCOTUS.
Relying on the court to make policy is bad practice. Better to deal with unwilling states by having Congress legislate that univercal reciprocity of State marriage licences is a condition of recieving education and highway funding.
I know you people like to think that SSM is about indivigual rights, but that was never true. Thats the elotional appeal you're told to manipulate you. SSM, like many other issues, is about eroding States rights. Government has never, does not, and will never give a **** about your 'rights'. The government only cares about controling you.
Thats what women thought as they brought their voting rights argument before SCOTUS.
Relying on the court to make policy is bad practice. Better to deal with unwilling states by having Congress legislate that univercal reciprocity of State marriage licences is a condition of recieving education and highway funding.
I know you people like to think that SSM is about indivigual rights, but that was never true. Thats the elotional appeal you're told to manipulate you. SSM, like many other issues, is about eroding States rights. Government has never, does not, and will never give a **** about your 'rights'. The government only cares about controling you.
Interracial marriage would then have been the same thing, an emotional issue which eroded states' rights. The state only has the right to regulate something, limit something that treats individuals differently when they can show that doing so furthers a legitimate state interest. Scrutiny still is part of the judicial process when it comes to constitutional law.
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?