Admittedly, SOME evil has been done in the name of Christianity. However, your “changing culture” meme has done far more evil. Our “changing culture” has produced 60 million + murdered babies. Our “changing culture” has “sanctified” the filthy practice of sodomy. Our “changing culture” has allowed the government, of all groups, to assume responsibility for our children, their educations, discipline (or lack of it) and their healthcare…to their ultimate detriment. Our changing culture has produced “gun free zones” which have become shooting galleries for those who don’t want to be deterred in their evil intentions. Our “culture” began to change when the “progressives” started convincing large numbers of people that they can do without God…or to anoint “the government” as their new “god.”
So, Tiny - In your America, a privately owned and operated business open to the public should be allowed to refuse service to a Jew, a homosexual and/or a black because of their race, religion, gender identity and/or ethnicity? Really?
I wonder how long YOU would tolerate being refused a seat at your local diner?
It is EXACTLY your kind of intolerant social conservative BS that makes it difficult for Republicans to win a national election.
Okay, fine. So folks are both citizens of the U.S. and citizens of the state in which they reside.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;*
Privileges and immunities are created by the state and no citizens’ privileges or immunities may be abridged by the State.
Not quite. The primary thrust and intent of this section is to make sure that the states cannot deny privileges and immunities bestowed upon * United States * citizens. And, plainly, it’s not limited to the denial of rights we have as American citizens based on color. Race was the merely the context in which the 14th Amendment arose. If the drafters had wanted to limit its scope to race, they would have said so. No, they were enunciating a universal principle, and the latest SCOTUS ruling confirms what I’ve been saying is the law for years now - the right to marry is a right belonging to each of us as an American citizen, and no state that freely decides to bestow valuable privileges and immunity upon the voluntary obligation of marriage can lawfully deny those privileges and immunities to a same sex couple that desires to undertake the obligation. (Again, I’m speaking of civil marriage only. The holy aspects of “marriage” remain the sole province of churches.)
*** nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; ***
Each state creates is own due process and whatever that due process is, no person may be deprived of life, liberty, or property without receiving the State’s due process of law.
Agreed, but the 14th Amendment right at stake here is the right to equal protection as an American citizen. An individual state’s denial of equal protection deprives an individual of rights, privileges and immunities he possesses as an American citizen (heck, as free man). In this case, the right to marry.
****nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Whatever a state’s laws are, no person may be denied the equal protection of those laws.
True, but as I’ve explained the 14th amendment goes farther than that.
Jazz, we are all waiting for you to address this part of John’s post:
“Now, having reviewed the plain text of the 14th Amendment, how does its plain text forbid a state to make distinctions in law based upon sex when issuing a state marriage license, which is a privilege created by the State?”
I just did. See post 103.
And what johnwk keeps hectoring about is something different - he keeps thinking that legislative intent must be applied affirmatively to deny the 14th Amendment’s application to discrimination outside the context of race. But the plain text does not limit such application.
Our changing culture: Allows children to have sex reassignment operations WITHOUT parents permission or involvement, our changing culture has tax payers paying for it, our changing culture that has killed 60 million babies which most were paid for by the taxpayer (in spite of regs against it), our changing culture allows fathers to marry their daughters, our changing culture bans french fries, drinks over 12 oz, candy bars in school while teaching that capitalism is bad, socialism is good, taking GOD out of our culture while saying that communism is good, cigarette smoking is bad, while pot smoking is good…and I could go on and on.
You gave an unsubstantiated opinion in post 103 with respect to the question being asked.
The 14th Amendment had nothing to do with forbidding state laws based upon sex. And as I already documented, the court has a duty to enforce the legislative intent of a law. So what is the legislative intent of the 14th Amendment as stated by one of its supporters?
“Its whole effect is not to confer or regulate rights, but to require that whatever of these enumerated rights and obligations are imposed by State laws shall be for and upon all citizens alike without distinctions based on race or former condition of slavery…It permits the States to say that the wife may not testify, sue or contract. It makes no law as to this. Its whole effect is to require that whatever rights as to each of the enumerated civil (not political) matters the States may confer upon one race or color of the citizens shall be held by all races in equality…It does not prohibit you from discriminating between citizens of the same race, or of different races, as to what their rights to testify, to inherit &c. shall be. But if you do discriminate, it must not be on account of race, color or former conditions of slavery. That is all. If you permit a white man who is an infidel to testify, so you must a colored infidel. Self-evidently this is the whole effect of this first section. It secures-not to all citizens, but to all races as races who are citizens- equality of protection in those enumerated civil rights which the States may deem proper to confer upon any race.” ___ SEE: Rep. Shellabarger, Cong. Globe, 1866, page 1293
And Bingham the architect of the 1st section of the 14th Amendment emphasized “the care of the property, the liberty, and the life of the citizen . . . is in the States and not in the federal government. I have sought to effect no change in that respect.” See Cong. Globe page 1292
Bingham goes on to say:
I have always believed that the protection in time of peace within the States of all the rights of person and citizen was of the powers reserved to the States. And so I still believe. Now, what does this bill propose? To reform the whole civil and criminal code of every State`s government by declaring that there shall be no discrimination between Citizens on account of race or color in civil rights or in the penalties prescribed by their laws. See Cong. Globe page 1293
The fact is, even Bingham, who authored the 14th Amendment, eventually acknowledged his objective was not to overturn federalism___ powers “reserved” by the States under the 10th Amendment. His clear objective was “that there shall be no discrimination between Citizens on account of race or color in civil rights or in the penalties prescribed by their [a State’s] laws.” and this was the narrow objective of the 14th Amendment as is documented from the debates of the 39th Congress.
Now, having reviewed the plain text of the 14th Amendment and its legislative intent, how does its plain text or legislative intent forbid a state to make distinctions in law based upon sex when issuing a state marriage license, which is a privilege created by the State?
We do know that after the 14th Amendment was adopted and before the 19th Amendment was adopted, the right to vote was denied based upon sex, and marriage licenses were only issued to opposite sex couples. We also know the 19th Amendment’s plain text specifically applies to voting and ended sex discrimination at the voting booth. So where is the plain text in the Constitution forbidding the states to make distinctions in law based upon sex when issuing a state marriage license? Why was a constitutional amendment needed to guarantee the right to vote without reference to sex, but no amendment is needed to forbid a state to only issue a marriage license to an opposite sex couple?
And finally, let us recall that the “Equal Rights Amendment” of the 1980s __ an amendment to forbid distinctions in law based upon “sex” ___ was rejected by the American People. And one of the reasons it was rejected was because it would compel the States to grant marriage licenses to same sex couples.
So tell us, when did the American People adopt wording in our federal Constitution to knowingly and willingly forbid the states to make distinctions in law based upon sex when granting a marriage license?
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.
I re-read post 103 and I don’t see it. How about answering a simple question :
Why can the state legislate qualifications for a license to practice law, practice medicine or drive a car but not for marriage?
Speaking for myself, long enough to drive to another diner and vote with my dollars, instead of getting governmet to strongarm them into “serving” me in an untrustworthy manner. I’d rather have honest hostility than fake smiles…
And no; the GOP manages to lose presidential elections all by themselves…
Anyone stupid enough to refuse service to any of those people won’t be in business very long anyway. I wouldn’t refuse to serve someone who is “gay” in a restaurant of mine–assuming they followed the rules of polite etiquette and didn’t flaunt the fact that they were sodomites in front of other customers. I don’t want to KNOW whether someone is gay or straight. It’s not my business, first of all, and secondly, owning a restaurant, florist shop, photography studio or bakery shouldn’t expose me and my employees to how someone chooses to have SEX! A hetero couple slobbering all over each other would be asked to take their business elsewhere just as quickly as would “gays” doing the same thing.
I think most freedom loving Americans would agree with your post. I certainly do. I also have no problem with bigots refusing to allow homosexuals into their business . . . such business owners would soon find themselves living under a bridge and penniless. . . . a free market place has a way of dealing with those types of people, and without government intrusion into the market place!
Are you suggesting that a state could license lawyers, doctors and drivers so long as they are not homosexuals? Actually your question is an excellent one, and illustrates why the SCOTUS’s ruling should not be controversial. It would be a clear equal protection violation, would it not, if a state were to arbitrarily withhold a driver’s license to otherwise-qualified individuals who happen to be gay?
Nice try to switch the subject to something not in contention. What we are talking about is a state’s adopted qualifications for a marriage license requiring one male and one female to receive the license. We are also talking about the court observing the rules of common law, one of which is for the court to observe long held customs, such as the definition of marriage as understood by the state from its beginning. To change that custom would require a constitutional amendment.
BTW, I see you have not responded to POST NO. 106 Are the documented facts too overwhelming for you to formulate a rebuttal? Or. are you in agreement with the post?
A state cannot adopt qualification requirements for marriage that violate the 14th amendment’s equal protection guarantee, just as may not do so when establishing qualification requirements for drivers licenses or other licenses for which it grants priviliges and immunities. Gays cannot be arbitrarily excluded from the privileges and immunities of a lawful driver’s license, or license to practice law. Seems pretty obvious, right? And now, the SCOTUS confirms, the same protection applies to a marriage licenses. Thanks to OD for framing his question, which illustrates well why the SCOTUS was Constitutionally obliged to rule as it did.
There is nothing in licensing laws for lawyers, doctors, dirivers OR MARRIAGE about homosexuals! Elton John and Ellen Degeneres could get a marriage license if they wanted to do so. They can’t get a law license unless they pass the bar exam. It’s all about meeting the qualifications.
Should Muslims be held to the same standard that you accuse Tiny of wanting? How about the black Judge who refused to marry a gay couple?
Or for that matter a gay judge who refuses to marry straight couples
I was refused a seat at a Chinese Buffet, because of my size.
Yes, I truly believe that a PRIVATE business has the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. If that decision is unpopular in that area, they’ll suffer for it. Once again, a person should have the right to associate with whomever they CHOOSE. If you require private businesses to associate according to Government mandate, how long before the gooberment decides we cannot befriend whomever we choose, date whomever we choose and refuse whomever we choose.
What scares everyone about freedom to associate? Oh yeah, establishment pubbies think that private businesses are subject to the same criteria as PUBLIC, aka Government concerns.
I guess you agree with Obozo, that they didn’t build their business? Just askin’.
And a state which requires one male and one female to qualify for a marriage license does not violate any part of the 14th Amendment’s text or its legislative intent. I might add the supportive evidence to that claim is provided in POST NO. 106. Are the documented facts contained therein too overwhelming for you to formulate a rebuttal?
No, your reliance on 1860s-era legislative history to discern the plain language of the 14th amendment in the context of the 21st century is too unsound as to be worthy of additional comment. I’ll say it again - if the drafters of the 14th amendment had intended to limit its protections to persons of color, they would have so provided in the amendment.
OD’s questions are right on point and illustrate well why the SCOTUS ruled as it did. The marriage contract is a creation of the state and the state alone. No state is required to apend any privileges and immunities to its issuance of a marriage license or its recognition of a marriage contract. But if it does, it is obliged to extend the law’s equal protection. Just as a driver’s license cannot be denied to an otherwise qualified individual because he is gay, the same holds with respect to the parties to a marriage contract.
If a state objects to the SCOTUS’s ruling, the solution is to withdraw all privileges and immunities from the marriage contract, same sex or opposite sex. Some here have proposed just that - get the state “out of the marriage business”. To me, that’s cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face, but I’ve never given SoCons much credit for understanding such things.
If that decision is unpopular in that area, they’ll suffer for it.
And if in “that area” folks are unreconstructed bigots, then innocents will suffer. But no one cares about that, huh?
The current law is sound - one can choose whether or not to run a business that deals with the public. That’s a perfectly free choice - but if the businessowner decides to do so, he must submit to the community’s rules regarding public accommodations.