Hey now, all 42 of those federal judges are activist judges maybe?
Not all. There is the one district federal ruling over Louisiana. Robicheaux et. al v. Caldwell. That upheld a same sex marriage ban.
Yep, and if the state had a constitution that laid down one man and one woman definition of marriage they would only be in violation of the 14th if they didn't allow one man to marry one woman. That's equality under the law.
As for the rest, it's just nonsense in this discussion. You cannot claim with a straight face that homosexual marriage has anything to do with our need for survival.
An activist judge is one whose rulings you don't agree with.
If you want to make the new argument that "procreation is a legitimate state interest for marriage bans" or that "denying marriage to same sex couples does not violate equal protection because it discriminates equally" then that is fine and I can easily contest those new arguments. However, I was contesting your old 10th amendment argument that "marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution so the federal government has not place in it." That was not a sound argument.
Which argument would you like to put forward now?
Correct, it does not. Not it's purpose nor it's intent.
The 14th says "any person" not "former slaves" or "people of African descent" or whatever. The amendment could very easily have been drawn narrowly if the intent was to have it apply only to former slaves. It wasn't.
The Federal government is involved because it has been asked by the people to get involved. The people can not run to the Constitution and amend it to fix problems in our daily lives...that is why we have laws.
Marriage and child custody are contracts that have to be settled in a court of law. Who offers that service? Google? AT&T? Walmart? ...No the state and federal governments.
Yep, and if the state had a constitution that laid down one man and one woman definition of marriage they would only be in violation of the 14th if they didn't allow one man to marry one woman. That's equality under the law.
As for the rest, it's just nonsense in this discussion. You cannot claim with a straight face that homosexual marriage has anything to do with our need for survival.
No, not for me. An activist judge is one who improperly uses law or constitution to decide in the favor of a cause.
And you cannot claim with a straight face that a state constitution can define a federal amendment.
I am no Constitutional scholar, but if you see little difference, then you don't even have a basic understanding of the cases, the subjects, and the Constitution. Can't really put it any other way.
Same way the folks who wrote it and ratified it did.
No, read what YOU posted. I was countering your assertion that marriage was some fundamental right tied to survival. If it were, homosexual marriage loses.
The feds have no constitutional play here despite your thinking that the 10th and actual enumeration doesn't matter.
You're contending that the equal protection clause does not cover SSM?No, absolutely not. Sexual orientation is not covered by the 14th, nor was that the intent of the 14th to begin with.
Wow, I know you know more of our history than that displays. Tell me again the intent wasn't to deal with former slaves. It certainly didn't apply to women who, last I checked were persons.
No, absolutely not. Sexual orientation is not covered by the 14th, nor was that the intent of the 14th to begin with.
What makes you think they wanted it to apply narrowly? Why do you think they didn't want broad interpretations towards individual liberty? Were they just more authoritarian than I am?
Some people argue that the 2nd amendment only applies to muzzle-loading black powder muskets, because the founding fathers never said anything about semi-automatic weapons.
I don't claim to be a Constitutional scholar, but I can read, apply logic, common sense, and reason to a variety of situations.
I've followed SSCM quite closely over the last decade since 2004 reading many of the briefs and decisions in the matter (I don't claim to have memorized them) and evaluated the arguments on both sides of the issue and the truth is the pro-discrimination side has been lacking as to why discrimination based on the racial composition of the couple does not matter but yet the gender composition of the couple does.
In 10-years no one has been able, from a Constitutional and legal perspective, been able to provide a compelling government reason - which pertains to the comparison of those in like situations that are treated differently but where one group is discriminated against - as to why law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting, adult couples of different genders are allowed to Civilly Marry but yet law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting, adult couples of the same gender are not allowed to Civilly Marry.
So here is your chance, please articulate a reason that applies equally to both groups.
My assertion was not that marriage is a fundamental right tied to survival. My argument is that marriage is a law, and therefore, it falls under the 14th amendment. There are amendments that exist beyond the 10th amendment and the purpose of Section 1 of the 14th amendment was to limit state powers so that they could not pass laws that would violate equal protection and due process.
Are you going to argue that the Supreme Court was wrong to strike down state interracial marriage bans in Loving v. Virginia because the federal government has no authority over marriage law?
No, they were dealing with an issue that had plagued us, split us since the beginning.
Well then those some people don't know what they're talking about. Automatic weapons existed at the time, we just couldn't afford them.
Ferguson rifle
Ferguson rifle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Thanks for the softball. First, there is no pro-discrimination side in this. Second, all men can marry women, all women can marry men. No one has to, many don't. That covers everyone. And third, I really don't like when people decide to use the government, unconstitutionally, to force their desires on everyone else. That has to be stopped, it undermines our society. If SSM happens, it needs to happen within the rules that we have set up. You can't have an entire State vote on an issue, and then when you lose, get one person to flip it. What the Hell was the vote for???
Oh, and as a little P.S. to this entire argument. The left couldn't give a rat's butt about gays and whether or not they can marry, if they could get more votes by being on the other side of the issue, they'd leave you all at the alter in a heartbeat. Don't kid yourselves.