I’ll actually address your silly questions now. It is not about equal protection. Sodomy laws were not struck down over equal protection it was over the right to privacy. If a state passed a law denying a drivers license or a marriage license to homosexuals how would they enforce it? The laws governing marriage do not mention homosexuality in any state. If you want to justify mandatory same sex marriage licensing on constitutional principles you need to amend the constitution.
“Oh no! We are gonna suffer 'cause the Cake Man won’t bake us an Adam and Steve Cake. What ever will we do?”
“Oh, the pain, the pain. The Photographer won’t shoot our same sex wedding. I don’t know if I can bear the pain!”
“Bother. I can’t handle the rejection!! That Pastor won’t officiate our non Biblical union. The end is near!!!”
Give me a break.
This isn’t just hateful discrimination. Religious beliefs are SUPPOSED to be protected rights. I would never balk at selling a gay couple a birthday cake or a dozen doughnuts, but requiring that I participate in their ceremony, begs that I choose between my religious beliefs, and man’s interpretations. Heck, no evidence exists that Gays are born gay. It is all supposition of those who wish to compete for their votes. Last time I looked, it was a choice.
So, you are fine with a licensed business open to the public to be closed to some by allowing racial discrimination, ethnic discrimination, gender discrimination, etc. I guess you are a “Bull Connor conservative/Republican” - Bull would love you. If you don’t know who he was, Google his name. If you are OK with, for example, racial discrimination I guess you are fine with Affirmative Action.
I find your response TOTALLY indefensible.
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. .[/QUOTE]
Your above opinion defies a fundamental rule of constitutional law!
With regard to the language of the constitution see:
16 Am Jur 2d Constitutional law
Meaning of Language
Ordinary meaning, generally
***”Words or terms used in a constitution, being dependent on ratification by the people voting upon it, must be understood in the sense most obvious to the common understanding at the time of its adoption…***”__ (my emphasis)
The Court is not free to make the words or phrases in our Constitution mean whatever they so desire, but are confined to the meaning of words as understood when the Constitution, or a particular amendment was adopted. To not follow this rule is to allow judges and Justices to defy the very reasons for which the people gave their consent when adopting the Constitution and allow judges and Justices to make the Constitution mean whatever they want it to mean. And that my friend is judicial anarchy.
To give an example of where your illogical thinking leads is to recall the Kelo decision in which Justice Stevens in delivering the opinion engaged in judicial anarchy and expanded the meaning of “public use” to allow the taking of private property for a “public purpose” which is not what our Constitution declares or what the people agreed to when adopting our Constitution.
in Kelo, Justice Stevens actually indicates the Court will ignore the meaning of “public use” as it was understood when our Constitution was adopted, justifying such tyranny because of the “evolving needs of society”!
Justice Stevens in delivering the opinion of the Court writes:
while many state courts in the mid-19th century endorsed “use by the public” as the proper definition of public use, that narrow view steadily eroded over time. Not only was the “use by the public” test difficult to administer (e.g., what proportion of the public need have access to the property? at what price?),7 but it proved to be impractical given the diverse and always evolving needs of society.8 Accordingly, when this Court began applying the Fifth Amendment to the States at the close of the 19th century, it embraced the broader and more natural interpretation of public use as "public purpose.***
The irrefutable fact is, the people did not erode the meaning of “public use” via an appropriate constitutional amendment process which is the only lawful way to change the meaning of words in a Constitution. The Court took it upon itself to do for the people what they did not willingly and knowingly do for themselves with a constitutional amendment as required by our Constitution, and, the Court brazenly appealed to the “evolving needs of society” to justify its own “broader and more natural interpretation” of “public use”. And this amounts to judicial tyranny!
On the other hand, Justice Thomas, in his dissenting opinion, observes the rules of constitutional law and carefully documents the meaning of the words “public use” as they were understood during the time the constitution was adopted. He then concludes:
The Court relies almost exclusively on this Court’s prior cases to derive today’s far-reaching, and dangerous, result. See ante, at 8-12. But the principles this Court should employ to dispose of this case are found in the Public Use Clause itself, not in Justice Peckham’s high opinion of reclamation laws, see supra, at 11. When faced with a clash of constitutional principle and a line of unreasoned cases wholly divorced from the text, history, and structure of our founding document, we should not hesitate to resolve the tension in favor of the Constitution’s original meaning. For the reasons I have given, and for the reasons given in Justice O’Connor’s dissent, the conflict of principle raised by this boundless use of the eminent domain power should be resolved in petitioners’ favor. I would reverse the judgment of the Connecticut Supreme Court.”
Why do you ignore the fundamental rules of constitutional construction which in turn allows the shredding or our Constitution inch by inch by judges and Justices who are then set free to make the constitution mean whatever they wish it to mean? Why do you not support and defend our constitutionally limited system of government and the most fundamental rules of constitutional law?
The constitutional meaning of marriage is a union between one male and one female and is protected under the rules of common law which the Court is required to observe.
*** "The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void.*** ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)
- Am I fine with it? No; but I don’t believe that autocratic legal solutions are worth their weight in dog droppings.
- You guess wrong.
- That statement doesn’t even make a lick of sense.
- I find your STRAWMAN MISREPRESENTATION of what I said in your zeal to promote your own position to be totally indefensible.
Nonsense, Jazz (again!) The issue isn’t “equal protection for homosexuals.” It’s about the DEFINITION of what constitutes a “marriage.” Gays have ALWAYS been able to marry…it just that they don’t WANT to marry someone of the opposite sex. One cannot obtain a driver’s license if blind. One cannot practice law without having passed the bar exam. One cannot practice medicine unless one has graduated from medical school…and one cannot be “married” unless there is one man and one woman in the union. Reasonable, sane qualifications all.
You’re beating a dead horse, Dave. As the law stands, a state can deny the right of gays to marry under the civil law only by denying the right of straights to marry under the civil law. That’s been suggested by some - getting the state “out of the marriage business”.
I suggest you find a new issue to get worked up about, like religious liberty in the wake of the SCOTUS's decision. Marriage equality is here to stay.
Don’t bet on it. …and there’s nothing “equal” about the issue. We’ll see how the left reacts when two heteros decide to “marry” in order to obtain the “benefits” of marriage. Buy yourself a pair of noise-cancelling ear plugs.
I was thinking about that. There are a lot of single moms who could benefit from one working while one stays home with the kids and/or continues their education, and still reap the marriage benefits in taxes and insurance. At least there is nothing to prevent them from having live-in working boyfriends either, like there is with moms on welfare.
Virginia’s Solicitor General made the same argument in Loving v Virginia, 388 US 1 (1967). The arguments “all have the right to marry but not to someone of a different race” and “all have the right to marry but not to someone of the same gender” are the same. The Supreme Court rejected that argument in 1967 and again in 2015.
Basically what the title says
Kind of not making your case when you approach the subject like this.
eh, I suppose. I just support it and that’s about it. People can be with whoever they want and live the lives that they choose. That’s the point that I am making
Not seeing where Govt permissions are necessary then.
If you could care less, then keep trying. You may get there some day.
And thus, the left continues with the charade that chosen type of sexual activity equals race…
If you had lived for a long time with a pervert, you wouldn’t approve of any kind of sexual perversion.
And social conservatives continue with the charade that sexual orientation is a choice. Face it, FC, YOUR GOD created homosexuals.
With all of the research into genetics and DNA over the past few decades there is not a shred of evidence for a gay gene. Thousands of other characteristics, diseases, immunities etc. have been identified but this one remains political, not scientific. And remarkably, this supposed gay gene drives gays into our prison systems in disproportionate numbers.
The overwhelming evidence, to date, is that it is a lifestyle choice.
Horse-hockey, Jazz. MY God gave everyone free will. It’s not His fault that some use that free will to do evil…and homosex IS evil, promoting and enabling horrible diseases, some of which have spread into the hetero “community”–in a few cases INTENTIONALLY by gays so afflicted.