Consolidated Gay Issue Thread


#5861

I didn’t say the 14th amendment prohibits discrimation, I said it guarantees the equal protection of the law.

The 14th amendment doesn’t, for example, prohibit discrimination against gays in housing and jobs. A specific state or federal statute is required for that. But when the state provides unique benefits and protections to those who enter into the obligation of marriage, it cannot deny those benefits and protections to same sex couples who wish to undertake those same obligations. (I’m speaking, of course, of civil marriage, where the rights and obligations are created and enforced by the state. A church can, as always, deny its sanction to a gay marriage.)


#5862

We have been warned about you willingness to accept tyranny!

You’ve devalued the meaning of the word tyranny. The SCOTUS decision guarantees the law’s equal protection to individuals formerly denied such protection. Meanwhile, no one else’s rights have been harmed or affected in the slightest. You call that “tyranny”? I call that a great day for America! Go live a while in the Middle East for a taste of what “tyranny” really is. Sheesh.


#5863

What it really guarantees is, whatever laws are adopted by a state, the State may not “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection” of those laws. The States have been left free to make their own laws, so long as those laws do not make distinctions based upon race or color, which is the legislative intent of the 14th Amendment.

Your notions about the 14th Amendment have been handily debunked!

JWK

***“On every question of construction [of the Constitution], carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”***–Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322.


#5864

Your notions about the 14th amendment are unmitigated nonsense, and have been handily debunked by the highest court in the land.


#5865

exactly!!


#5866

So the Gays are now going to sue Bible publishers:

Gay Man Files $70M Suit Against Bible Publishers Over ‘Homosexual’ Verses

Folks, some of you doubted me, and still do… I don’t know how. It’s only getting started.


#5867

Any idiot can file a lawsuit, DN. This guy couldn’t even find an idiot lawyer to back him; he filed it all by himself.

Crapola like this is meaningless. Freedom of religion is still protected by the Constitution.


#5868

We aren’t dealing with “couples” here, Jazz. We’re dealing with INDIVIDUALS. People! The Constitution doesn’t even MENTION the term “couples” anywhere. It talks about “the people” extensively–meaning PEOPLE as individuals. “Couples” don’t have “Constitutional rights.” Individuals do. No individual is denied “equal protection” of the law by prohibiting two individuals who are by definition DISqualified to “marry” because they are of the same sex. The very DEFINITION of the term “marry” is, and always has been, a union between two INDIVIDUALS of the opposite sex. Despite what the LGBT mafia seems to think, there are only TWO sexes…male and female. Which one you are is determined by your chromosomes. If they are XY then you are male. If they are XX then you are female, and no amount of surgical/hormonal shenanigans will ever change that. Therefore, a “marriage” requires one man and one woman and makes NO ALLOWANCES for sexual preferences.


#5869

My dear friend, what has been handily debunked is the Majority Opinion of the Court and your unsubstantiated assertions. SEE:Post No. 1, Post No. 17 , and more recently Post No. 80..

Instead of offering a cogent rebuttal to the arguments how the majority opinion defies both the text and legislative intent of the Constitution, you prefer to make absurd and unsubstantiated assertions which conflict with the text and legislative intent of the 14th Amendment.

To clear the air, can you at least tell us why you go to great lengths to pretend the 14th Amendment means something unconfirmed by the Congressional Debates of the 39th Congress, nor is in harmony with the text of the 14th Amendment? Why do you attempt to give legitimacy to the Courts majority opinion which does nothing more than impose its whims and fancies upon the entire population of the United States as the rule of law, and is the very definition of judicial tyranny?

JWK


“The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges’ views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice.” – Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968



#5870

Exactly.

Additionally we are told that the denial of a marriage license to a same sex couple is an abridgement of “privileges or immunities”.

**“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;” **

But, privileges and immunities are created by government with the restrictions placed thereon, e.g., a driver’s license with an age restriction the state deems necessary for the public good. So, privileges and immunities have to be created by the state before they can be “abridged”.

When women were denied the right to vote before the 19th Amendment was adopted, there was no abridgment of privileges or immunities. But after the 19th Amendment was adopted, the assertion would have merit.

If a person does not qualify for the privileges or immunities created by a state because of the restrictions associated with those privileges or immunities there would been no abridgment of privileges or immunities. Of course, if the state attempts to use race or color as a restriction placed upon privileges or immunities, that indeed would be a violation because of the 14th Amendment’s legislative intent.

Until a State by its legislative process removes the restrictions placed on a marriage license to allow a same sex couple to apply, there has been no abridgement of that “couple’s” privileges or immunities.

JWK

Those who reject and ignore abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.*


#5871

Give it up, Dave and johnwk. You’re still fighting a battle that’s been decided. The 14th amendment guarantees the law’s equal protection. That’s a good thing. And your rights aren’t harmed in the slightest, so there’s no “tyranny”, unless you want to define the term so as to lose all meaning.

Go find another fight; this one’s over.


#5872

Well, my dear, instead of defending your assertions concerning the 14th Amendment, you decide to repeat your unsubstantiated assertions.

Will you at least tell us why you go to great lengths to pretend the 14th Amendment means something unconfirmed by the Congressional Debates of the 39th Congress, nor is in harmony with the text of the 14th Amendment? Why do you attempt to give legitimacy to the Courts majority opinion which does nothing more than impose its whims and fancies upon the entire population of the United States as the rule of law, and is the very definition of judicial tyranny?

JWK


#5873

Just wait, there is a Gloria Allred out there for him. There will be more of this.


#5874

Even Gloria Allred won’t take a case if she knows she won’t get paid. Like I said, any idiot can file a lawsuit. That fact shouldn’t cause us to panic that the courts will give any credence to such meritless nonsense.

Of course, the stock in trade of a politician is to scare the public with stories of impending doom. It’s our task to treat such scare tactics for what they are - attempts at exploitation of the weak-minded.


#5875

The SCOTUS’s ruling is in harmony with the text of the 14th amendment. Try reading it, johnwk. Its protections are not limited to people of color.

I understand that the historical impetus for the 14th amendment was slavery. But that doesn’t mean that the contemporaneous Congressional debates deserve any credence with respect to the equal protection clause’s interpretation. And the reason is as plain as day - if the authors of the amendment had intended its protections to extend only to persons of color, the text of the amendment would have said so.


#5876

Yeah, ok Jazz. You just remember this when a similar case goes through, if not this one.

As I said, this is just the beginning. It will get much worse.


#5877

How much money do you think that moron who tried to remove “Under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance got…and he DID find a court to hear his case?


#5878

What a load of hooey.
Idaho city’s ordinance tells pastors to marry gays or go to jail - Washington Times

Coeur d‘Alene, Idaho, city officials have laid down the law to Christian pastors within their community, telling them bluntly via an ordinance that if they refuse to marry homosexuals, they will face jail time and fines.

The dictate comes on the heels of a legal battle with Donald and Evelyn Knapp, ordained ministers who own the Hitching Post wedding chapel in the city, but who oppose gay marriage, The Daily Caller reported.

Denmark is forcing churches, and the Brits are fighting it out now, to force churches. Only a moron would think it won’t happen here. In Idaho, it already is.


#5879

Understood, DN. We simply have different perspectives. I give credence to both the First and Fourteenth Amendments, believe they don’t have to conflict with each other and trust the courts to sort it all out. You think the fact that gays can now marry will lead to the collapse of religion and religious freedom.

Actually, you may be right that religion is imperiled. I think the courts will continue to recognize the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious freedom, but religion of the sort you favor may very well whither away regardless. But that’s because of changes in the culture, not changes in the law. It’s not the law’s fault that more and more people equate the Bible’s condemnation of homosexuality with bigotry. As gays shirk thousands of years of religious oppression and emerge from the shadows, more and more people realize that so many of their neighbors, colleagues and family members are gay - and not much different than they are. From such seeds spring tolerance and understanding, and the demise of religion that rejects such tolerance and understanding.


#5880

If this and if that.

As is usually the case with you, you offer an unsubstantiated opinion. Doing so does not give weight or legitimacy to your opinion.
And now, you even choose to ignore the most fundamental rule of constitutional construction which is to observe and enforce the 14th Amendment’s legislative intent in spite of the fact it has already been established that enforcing legislative intent is the most fundamental rule of constitutional construction. See: Post No.47 which is titled “The most fundamental rule of Constitutional Construction”.
Now, instead of offering unsubstantiated opinion, how about offering a rebuttal to:

Post No. 1;

Post No. 17;

And, Post No. 80.?

Or simply tell us why you go to great lengths to pretend the 14th Amendment means something unconfirmed by the Congressional Debates of the 39th Congress, nor is in harmony with the text of the 14th Amendment. Why do you attempt to give legitimacy to the Court’s majority opinion which does nothing more than impose its whims and fancies upon the entire population of the United States as the rule of law, and is the very definition of judicial tyranny?

JWK


“The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges’ views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice.” – Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968