Page 22 of 88 FirstFirst ... 1220212223243272 ... LastLast
Results 211 to 220 of 880

Thread: **BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

  1. #211
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,125

    Re: **BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    Where are you getting this?
    14th Amendment...

    Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    The 14th amendment covers gays and lesbians because they are "citizens" and "persons".

  2. #212
    Sage
    clownboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    08-17-16 @ 10:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    26,087

    Re: **BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    So they didn't want the 14th amendment to cover anything except former slaves/racial issues? Who said that? What lead you to believe this was the intent? What if I suggested they were wiser than this, and realized that there were other aspects of a person that might be cause for discrimination in the future that they wanted to preempt?
    Well, for one it was a reconstruction amendment, that should give you a clue right there. For another, it had no impact on women and wasn't even applied to them, plenty of law still treated them unequally.

    Our amendment process was put into place for regular maintenance. It wasn't a set it and forget sort of thing (that was well known when the 14th was ratified, we forgot it later), nor is the Constitution some sort of living document whose meaning and intent changes with the times. That's precisely what I mean by maintenance. We haven't kept up and now we rely upon nine robed justices to do the end runs around the Constitution.

  3. #213
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,125

    Re: **BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    No, not just voting rights. Women were still second class citizens and the 14th did nothing to change that or the unequal application of law in their regard.
    Actually, Section of 2 of the 14th amendment further enforced women not having voting rights.

  4. #214
    Sage
    clownboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    08-17-16 @ 10:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    26,087

    Re: **BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Unitedwestand13 View Post
    What if a man wants to marry a man?
    Move to Canada.

  5. #215
    Sage
    clownboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    08-17-16 @ 10:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    26,087

    Re: **BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaius46 View Post
    The problem is that not all men decide to spend their lives with a woman nor not all women with a man. Some choose to spend their lives with someone of the same gender. If the government is going to recognize for the purposes of extension of government defined benefits one type of (presumably) permanent living arrangement it must recognize all.
    So, now we have to allow polygamy?

  6. #216
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,125

    Re: **BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    Move to Canada.
    Why? In a few months, they could marry a man in 30 states (or more) right here in the United States.

  7. #217
    Sage
    clownboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    08-17-16 @ 10:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    26,087

    Re: **BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    14th Amendment...

    Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    The 14th amendment covers gays and lesbians because they are "citizens" and "persons".
    No, no. Funny how you post one thing and then rebut it. MALE person as per YOUR post. You deny the 14th was about now freed slaves and race after posting that was precisely what it was about. Hilarious.

  8. #218
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,785

    Re: **BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    Well, for one it was a reconstruction amendment, that should give you a clue right there. For another, it had no impact on women and wasn't even applied to them, plenty of law still treated them unequally.

    Our amendment process was put into place for regular maintenance. It wasn't a set it and forget sort of thing, nor is the Constitution some sort of living document whose meaning and intent changes with the times. That precisely what I mean by maintenance. We haven't kept up and now we rely upon nine robed justices to do the end runs around the Constitution.
    That's it? No particular statements by anyone involved in enacting the amendment? Courts were just slow to protect women, so that's it? Courts were slow to protect black people too, some of the early rulings had things like "It's ok to punish blacks more for the same crime as whites, as long as you punish all blacks equally." Nearly 60 years passed between Plessy and Brown. This isn't a particularly compelling argument, even if we're granting that the "intent" of the writers is critical. In general, I'd say that intent is ambiguous, and individual liberty trumps other concerns barring highly-compelling arguments to the contrary, and that is the real intent of the constitution as a whole.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  9. #219
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,785

    Re: **BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    So, now we have to allow polygamy?
    In absence of a rational state interest to the contrary, yes. (rational basis test only, as polygamy is not a distinction of race, gender, or any other classification that requires higher levels of scrutiny)

    However, the rational basis test is not a particularly high bar. I'm sure you can think of something if it's that important to you.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  10. #220
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,125

    Re: **BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    No, no. Funny how you post one thing and then rebut it. MALE person as per YOUR post. You deny the 14th was about now freed slaves and race after posting that was precisely what it was about. Hilarious.
    When did I say the 14th amendment was not about granting citizenship to slaves? That was absolutely its purpose. But what did I say specifically about Section 1? Do you remember? Here I will help you out....

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    The 14th amendment was absolutely meant to grant citizenship to slaves (not just blacks), but Section 1 was broadly drafted to limit state powers, and those limitations were not limited to race but to any attempt for the state to circumvent equal protection of the laws. It has been used to protect against laws which used literacy, age, national origin, etc. to deny equal protection of the law.
    Unfortunately, due to the political climate of the time, they decided to screw over women in the second section...

    Section 2 of the 14th amendment has your answer as far as women's suffrage.

    "But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State."

    The wording was deliberately chosen to keep women from using Section 1 to argue for the right to vote. Never before had the words "male" or "female" been used in the Constitution.
    Does that help you at all?

Page 22 of 88 FirstFirst ... 1220212223243272 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •