Gay marriage is definitely next.Now that the precedent is going to be "let the states decide"...interracial and gay marriage will be at the prerogative of the states as well. Look for this in the next few decades.
No it won’t. Both decisions relied on an enumerated right to equal protection unlike the Roe decision which invented a right to abortion out of whole cloth.
Gay marriage is definitely next.
can you come up with a rational reason for a state to outlaw gay marriage or civil unions?Gay marriage is definitely next.
Sure....That has already been settled for years. Nothing can legally stop a gay or lesbian couple from marrying.
Now that the precedent is going to be "let the states decide"...interracial and gay marriage will be at the prerogative of the states as well. Look for this in the next few decades.
Sure....
And here in Texas (up until 2 years ago) you couldn't sue some because you thought they were assisting in someone getting an abortion--which is still legal in Texas as of this writing anyway. But now you can sue the person who paid for the abortion, the driver who drove the woman to the clinic, etc... And because of HIPPA, you don't really know if the woman who allegedly got the abortion was pregnant to start with. As long as they don't sue the woman, the nuisance law suits are enough to all but outlaw the practice.
If a state can come up with a completely ridiculous and cockamamie law like we have in Texas and the high court has decided that it's cool...gay and interracial marriage is subject to the same clever laws.
Why would you think that?
Do you have any evidence that the decisions rendered in those prior cases are not based on sound Constitutional foundations?
That would be (like the decision involving abortions) all depending on how those cases were founded in both the Constitution and legal history.
Its all about Griswold....I wish I were talking about Vacation...but I'm not. Its rather gullible to think that it isn't.The stupid abortion law has nothing to do with homosexual marriages. You know that.
yep.Now that the precedent is going to be "let the states decide"...interracial and gay marriage will be at the prerogative of the states as well. Look for this in the next few decades.
Roe was based on what was considered "sound" foundations too....the right to privacy.
And, as I demonstrated earlier, the State of Texas has stopped abortions in Texas by allowing you to sue people whom you merely suspect are involved in assisting a woman in getting an abortion. You can legally kill something by overturning it or you can simply make exercising the right impractical and the Roberts court is okay with that.
can you come up with a rational reason for a state to outlaw gay marriage or civil unions?
Wrongly apparently, which is why one should seek to read the "draft decision" I provided.
Meanwhile, I've never heard of a right to privacy superseding a right to Life (and Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.)
All of which could rightly apply to an unborn baby.
that doesn't workAfter today? Sure.
"Because they can."
that doesn't work
"could"...Wrongly apparently, which is why one should seek to read the "draft decision" I provided.
Meanwhile, I've never heard of a right to privacy superseding a right to Life (and Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.)
All of which could rightly apply to an unborn baby.
In fact, one's right to privacy is not absolute either. Laws allow for warrants to violate it, as well as "exigent circumstances" like saving a life.
"could"...
As far as government reach is considered....are unborn babies counted in the census? Why not? Well..because they are not born yet. If they were counted in the census...which they are not...there'd be legal standing to extend the rights you cited to the fetus.
You're right about the right to privacy. Do I need your permission to broadcast your medical history, credit history, social security number to anyone I wish? If not..why not--according to the strict interpretation of the constitution you're using in this case.
Ahh... since you want the fetus to have rights if the subject is abortion, you're all for them to have rights. Since you don't want the fetus to have rights if the subject is the census, you're against them having rights.False equivalence, as well as a red herring.
There are many people living in the USA who are also not in the census for reasons of legality.
Not sure I was deflecting. I was pointing out that you have no right to privacy. And when I asked you to show me the constitutional foundation that gives it to you...you can't.Another red herring.
Trying to deflect the argument to things you THINK are comparable is not a sound or valid response.
Meanwhile, I urge you to READ the draft decision completely, as I did. I'll post it again:
Then respond with a firmer foundation.
P.S. The decision simply overrules those "judicial laws," and passes the function of making law back where it belongs, in State and Federal Legislatures.
Ahh... since you want the fetus to have rights if the subject is abortion, you're all for them to have rights. Since you don't want the fetus to have rights if the subject is the census, you're against them having rights.
Can you be any more transparent.
Not sure I was deflecting. I was pointing out that you have no right to privacy. And when I asked you to show me the constitutional foundation that gives it to you...you can't.
I encourage you to come back with a firmer foundation and stop with the double standards.
Now that the precedent is going to be "let the states decide"...interracial and gay marriage will be at the prerogative of the states as well. Look for this in the next few decades.
They never had one before, why would they give you one now?can you come up with a rational reason for a state to outlaw gay marriage or civil unions?
Easy to say when it's not your rights being voted on, isn't it?What's wrong with that?