Judge strikes down Michigan's ban on gay marriage[W:95]

Gaugingcatenate said:

Polls are just a snapshot in time and are subject to speculation due to many factors, such as which questions are asked, how they are asked, which questions are not asked, who they are asking, blah blah blah... and here is an article that shows that opposition to SSM is understated in the polls Study: Opposition to same-sex marriage may be understated in public opinion polls | Pew Research Center

Click to expand...

No disagreement that desirability bias exists to some extend, that's why knowledgeable proponents of SSCM (You left out the "Civil" initial, that having to do with secular law) will target 55-60% positive polling prior to attempting a ballot initiative. But let's talk about polling that does count, the ballots cast regarding the issue...


As a matter of fact there was quite a divide on the community supporting SSCM in regards to the passage of Prop 8. One faction wanted to wait and implement a grass roots campaign and then place a new initiative on the ballot in either 2010 or 2012. Polling has shown, even with factoring in the "desirability bias" that California's SSCM ban would have been repealed at the ballot box in 2012. However the other faction didn't want to wait, they took the court challenge route to Prop 8 resulting in a court victory where Prop 8 was overturned and after reaching the SCOTUS that decision was allowed to stand. Personally I think the decision to go the court route, while a tactical victory (Prop 8 was overturned), I think it was a strategic mistake. The political capital of having one of the most populace states overturn their own ban (like Maine did) would have been a HUGH advantage as SSCM is addressed across the nation.


The writing is on the wall, even if one chooses to dismiss "Public Opinion Polls" on the matter, at the ballot box (the one poll that really counts) the fact that public opinion has shifted towards Marriage Equality is undeniable.

>>>>

Jetboogieman said:

"a black cannot marry a white and a white cannot marry a black, no preference given to the individual, all is equal, the rules all apply to everyone equally".

Click to expand...

Your point, please?

Mr.Nick said:

There are no interracial bans and Jim Crow wasn't a person.

Interracial bans had to do with property rights.....

That's what most people ignorant to history don't know - slavery was about property rights not race. Slaves could have been of any race.

Obviously it's stupid to think of human beings that way in this day in age but we had a civil war over "property rights."

Interracial marriage to folks in the south pre-1960 or so (especially the salty ones) was like a person marring a car or a horse or a piece of property.

To put it into some sort of context - those folks from the south were still pissed off that you freed all their mules they paid money for and that their families were out of tens - if not hundreds of thousands of dollars - which would piss anyone off.....

I wouldn't expect you to understand a different perspective even if you disagreed with it - nor would I most individuals.

Click to expand...

The reasoning used by legislators enacting "Jim Crow" laws is irrelevant. The supreme court did not take into count the historical perspective of "property rights" in thier judical reasoning...constitutional reasoning is striking down "Jim Crow" laws.

The State of Virginia never argued "property rights" before the court in Loving v. Vriginia.

Gaugingcatenate said:

Your point, please?

Click to expand...

My point is your logic is akin to the people on the wrong side of the civil rights era... I that it will fall flat on its face.

Gaugingcatenate said:

Your point, please?

Click to expand...

The point was, the measurement applied by the SCOTUS was not "the individual", it was how the couple was treated. Richard Loving and Mildred Loving (according to the Commonwealth of Virginia's argument presented to the SCOTUS) were treated (as individuals) equally. Each was allowed to Civilly Marry - but only within the race confines determined by the State. (i.e. to quote JB ""a black cannot marry a white and a white cannot marry a black, no preference given to the individual, all is equal, the rules all apply to everyone equally".)

The SCOTUS didn't buy that argument, they rejected it.

Your argument of "I cannot marry a man and no other man can, no other woman can marry another woman, all is equal, no preference is given to any individual. The rules all apply to everyone equally." Has the same structure simply replacing race with gender and trying to limit examination to the individual when in fact it is the couples that are treated differently (the same logic Virginia tried to use and failed).


NOTE: The exact wording from the Loving decision was "Thus, the State contends that, because its miscegenation statutes punish equally both the white and the Negro participants in an interracial marriage, these statutes, despite their reliance on racial classifications, do not constitute an invidious discrimination based upon race." Pretty much the same structural argument.


>>>>

Gaugingcatenate said:

The 14th protects each equally... as stated in another post, the 14th does not allow for an expansion of rights, it only equally protects all under current law. The logic is precise, undeniable. I cannot marry a man and no other man can, no other woman can marry another woman, all is equal, no preference is given to any individual. The rules all apply to everyone equally.

Putting something there that isn't there, what you may want, does not have anything to do with an equal application of the law.

Click to expand...

Where did you get this definition of the 14th? "...it only equally protects all under current law". Where did that caveat come from?

WorldWatcher said:

No disagreement that desirability bias exists to some extend, that's why knowledgeable proponents of SSCM (You left out the "Civil" initial, that having to do with secular law) will target 55-60% positive polling prior to attempting a ballot initiative. But let's talk about polling that does count, the ballots cast regarding the issue...



>>>>

Click to expand...

Thanks for the useful information.

Another area in which polling counts is in relation to constitutional amendments where SSM [and yes, in some cases Civil Unions, as well ]are banned or where the state defines marriage as one man one woman. I think the current count is 34 states [ plus could well be added other states within the 16 that currently allow for SSM/CU had similar amendments wrongly overturned by the courts ] and that is a 2/3s + majority of the states.

Gaugingcatenate said:

Thanks for the useful information.

Another area in which polling counts is in relation to constitutional amendments where SSM [and yes, in some cases Civil Unions, as well ]are banned or where the state defines marriage as one man one woman. I think the current count is 34 states [ plus could well be added other states within the 16 that currently allow for SSM/CU had similar amendments wrongly overturned by the courts ] and that is a 2/3s + majority of the states.

Click to expand...

At one time the majority of the States had bans on interracial marriage. The change started in the Court with a 1947 California Supreme Court overturning that States ban and by 1967 (the year of the Loving decision) there were still 18 States with such bans in place.

In actuality, the majority of those 17 States that have SSCM have done so - not through the courts - but through legislative action and ballot initiative. I can pull the list if you need confirmation.



>>>>

Jetboogieman said:

My point is your logic is akin to the people on the wrong side of the civil rights era... I that it will fall flat on its face.

Click to expand...

That is YOUR opinion, you are welcomed to it. What did happen in the CR era was that the majority was sincerely convinced that this form of discrimination was wrong, not the right way to go... if the majority had persisted in feeling that which you express was not right, and while I agree that not allowing people of different races to marry would be wrong, each society has the right to make such decisions...and they will, whether De Jure or De Facto.

If the majority does not agree, or at minimum accede, yes...the law simply will not fly, will indeed fall flat on its face.

This correlation of SSM with race is atrocious, by the way... using it as some sort of verbal battering ram to get ones way diminishes those who fought the good fight.

Gaugingcatenate said:

That is YOUR opinion, you are welcomed to it. What did happen in the CR era was that the majority was sincerely convinced that this form of discrimination was wrong, not the right way to go... if the majority had persisted in feeling that which you express was not right, and while I agree that not allowing people of different races to marry would be wrong, each society has the right to make such decisions...and they will, whether De Jure or De Facto.

If the majority does not agree, or at minimum accede, yes...the law simply will not fly, will indeed fall flat on its face.

This correlation of SSM with race is atrocious, by the way... using it as some sort of verbal battering ram to get ones way diminishes those who fought the good fight.

Click to expand...

The majority in those states that still had interracial bans, still wanted those bans. Alabama voted to amend their State Constitution to place such a ban beyond the reach of State courts - that ban was one of the ones overturned by Loving (1967).

IIRC in 2000 Alabama finally got around to repealing the language - which had remained part of their State Constitution even though it was unenforceable - and 40% still voted to retain the language.



>>>>

WorldWatcher said:

The point was, the measurement applied by the SCOTUS was not "the individual", it was how the couple was treated. Richard Loving and Mildred Loving (according to the Commonwealth of Virginia's argument presented to the SCOTUS) were treated (as individuals) equally. Each was allowed to Civilly Marry - but only within the race confines determined by the State. (i.e. to quote JB ""a black cannot marry a white and a white cannot marry a black, no preference given to the individual, all is equal, the rules all apply to everyone equally".)

The SCOTUS didn't buy that argument, they rejected it.

Your argument of "I cannot marry a man and no other man can, no other woman can marry another woman, all is equal, no preference is given to any individual. The rules all apply to everyone equally." Has the same structure simply replacing race with gender and trying to limit examination to the individual when in fact it is the couples that are treated differently (the same logic Virginia tried to use and failed).


NOTE: The exact wording from the Loving decision was "Thus, the State contends that, because its miscegenation statutes punish equally both the white and the Negro participants in an interracial marriage, these statutes, despite their reliance on racial classifications, do not constitute an invidious discrimination based upon race." Pretty much the same structural argument.


>>>>

Click to expand...

Yes, and maybe that will change, but not until the majority is convinced, or at least agrees to accept the change, no matter what the SC says. That is human nature. Governments can try to force its view of what is right through its powers of enforcement [ see the USSR and the PRC ] or it can allow its people to decide for themselves.

If our government starts going the USSR/PRC route, forcing those things down our throats of which we, the majority, cannot and will not abide, well, the consequences of that remain to be seen... but if there are more of us and less of the other side, I can fairly accurately predict which side is most probably going to prevail.

As regards the Loving case, yes... and while we may both disagree with what Virginia was attempting, this is not about race, same structured arguments do not apply in equal measure to all cases [ i.e., if a person wanted to marry 73 others, two of which are siblings ]... so while I understand your logic, it remains faulty in its potential, and actual, application.

Gaugingcatenate said:

Yes, and maybe that will change, but not until the majority is convinced, or at least agrees to accept the change, no matter what the SC says. That is human nature. Governments can try to force its view of what is right through its powers of enforcement [ see the USSR and the PRC ] or it can allow its people to decide for themselves.

If our government starts going the USSR/PRC route, forcing those things down our throats of which we, the majority, cannot and will not abide, well, the consequences of that remain to be seen... but if there are more of us and less of the other side, I can fairly accurately predict which side is most probably going to prevail.

As regards the Loving case, yes... and while we may both disagree with what Virginia was attempting, this is not about race, same structured arguments do not apply in equal measure to all cases [ i.e., if a person wanted to marry 73 others, two of which are siblings ]... so while I understand your logic, it remains faulty in its potential, and actual, application.

Click to expand...

Well of course you can claim my logic is faulty, you are free to do that.

That does not mean it is faulty though. Your arguments, up to this point, have repeated the same structure used at one time to ban interracial marriages. That logic failed and discrimination was overturned by the courts when challenged. We are seeing history repeating itself, the same types of arguments are being presented to justify discrimination based on race and the dominoes are falling because the logic is faulty.

My logic matches that of the various District Courts and the SCOTUS. We'll have to see if it holds thorugh the Appeals Court and the SCOTUS when they finally take a case directly on the issue (Windsor was about Federal recognition of legal Civil Marriage, not whether States could ban Civil Marriage based on gender).


>>>>

1750Texan said:

Where did you get this definition of the 14th? "...it only equally protects all under current law". Where did that caveat come from?

Click to expand...

Well, since we are going for silliness... how would you then apply the 14th, or even decide whether it is applicable? Lets say to something that does not exist, or does not yet exist. Or perhaps you may apply to the empty space that exists between the planets... or maybe the space left unused between some folks' ears?

Its definitely a quandary, eh? But go ahead, give us an example... I am not unreasonable, convince me.

Gaugingcatenate said:

Well, since we are going for silliness... how would you then apply the 14th, or even decide whether it is applicable? Lets say to something that does not exist, or does not yet exist. Or perhaps you may apply to the empty space that exists between the planets... or maybe the space left unused between some folks' ears?

Its definitely a quandary, eh? But go ahead, give us an example... I am not unreasonable, convince me.

Click to expand...

Applying the 14th to something that doesn't exist - well that's kind of silly.

The fact is that Civil Marriage does exist, it's not a new provision under the law.



>>>>

WorldWatcher said:

At one time the majority of the States had bans on interracial marriage. The change started in the Court with a 1947 California Supreme Court overturning that States ban and by 1967 (the year of the Loving decision) there were still 18 States with such bans in place.

In actuality, the majority of those 17 States that have SSCM have done so - not through the courts - but through legislative action and ballot initiative. I can pull the list if you need confirmation.



>>>>

Click to expand...

Thanks for a civil and reasoned discussion.

No need on the list pulling, I do not need a list of a majority of minority view states at this time... we have the 2/3s plus majority currently as well as that buffer of the minority of the states who so desire SSM/CU going through ballot or legislation. Thanks anyhow.

One thing more, though. A question: Did they overturn the SSM/CU amendments through a legitimate amendment process?

Gaugingcatenate said:

Thanks for a civil and reasoned discussion.
>
No need on the list pulling, I do not need a list of a majority of minority view states at this time... we have the 2/3s plus majority currently as well as that buffer of the minority of the states who so desire SSM/CU going through ballot or legislation. Thanks anyhow.

One thing more, though. A question: Did they overturn the SSM/CU amendments through a legitimate amendment process?

Click to expand...

Don't understand the question. Where the legislature had the power to repeal Statutory Law and enact Civil Marriages irregardless of gender, yes it was done in a legitimate manner. Where an Amendment was passed (Maine) by a vote of the people (2009), that was repealed by a new vote by the people (2012).

You are aware that not all ban on SSCM were "Amendments" to State Constitutions, some existed only as Statutory Law.

>>>

Gaugingcatenate said:

Well, since we are going for silliness... how would you then apply the 14th, or even decide whether it is applicable? Lets say to something that does not exist, or does not yet exist. Or perhaps you may apply to the empty space that exists between the planets... or maybe the space left unused between some folks' ears?

Its definitely a quandary, eh? But go ahead, give us an example... I am not unreasonable, convince me.

Click to expand...

Unless you consider your contention silly, I did not.

Your contention was quite clear...I understand your treatment of my question as silly, because I brought a direct challenge to your contention. One you do not have an answer to.

It was a simple question. Where did your interpretation of the meaning of the 14th amendment come from?

"...the 14th does not allow for an expansion of rights, it only equally protects all under current law. The logic is precise, undeniable."

These are your words, your contention, your interpretation.

Originally Posted by Gaugingcatenate

The 14th protects each equally... as stated in another post, the 14th does not allow for an expansion of rights, it only equally protects all under current law. The logic is precise, undeniable. I cannot marry a man and no other man can, no other woman can marry another woman, all is equal, no preference is given to any individual. The rules all apply to everyone equally.

Putting something there that isn't there, what you may want, does not have anything to do with an equal application of the law.

Click to expand...

WorldWatcher said:

Well of course you can claim my logic is faulty, you are free to do that.

That does not mean it is faulty though. Your arguments, up to this point, have repeated the same structure used at one time to ban interracial marriages. That logic failed and discrimination was overturned by the courts when challenged. We are seeing history repeating itself, the same types of arguments are being presented to justify discrimination based on race and the dominoes are falling because the logic is faulty.

My logic matches that of the various District Courts and the SCOTUS. We'll have to see if it holds thorugh the Appeals Court and the SCOTUS when they finally take a case directly on the issue (Windsor was about Federal recognition of legal Civil Marriage, not whether States could ban Civil Marriage based on gender).


>>>>

Click to expand...

Well, lets see you apply it to the scenario I presented. Lets say I wanted to marry 73 other people, two of which are my siblings, a male and a female sibling [certainly wouldn't want the sibling thing to be unequal for gosh sakes ]. Seeing as the one man one woman, the definition of "traditional marriage", would not hold any longer if we do away with the concept ... what is to stop me from marrying my 73 love mates which include my two siblings [assuming they are all consenting, my siblings have been rendered infertile and all of us are of age...but of course we could change all those annoying/unnecessary prerequisites later,right? ].

Give me my equal protection, I demand it. You gave it to them, you are going to discriminate against me and all these others simply based on some arbitrary number and that some of us are related... what is the state's compelling interest in not allowing us 74 to be married together?

Who will our marriage specifically hurt? You? You see, that is how the game is being currently, and will be in the future, played.

WorldWatcher said:

Applying the 14th to something that doesn't exist - well that's kind of silly.

The fact is that Civil Marriage does exist, it's not a new provision under the law.



>>>>

Click to expand...

Well, as you are aware, this was a reply to another poster. Yes, I am fully cognizant of Civil Marriage/Unions and their existence.

Gaugingcatenate said:

Well, lets see you apply it to the scenario I presented. Lets say I wanted to marry 73 other people, two of which are my siblings, a male and a female sibling [certainly wouldn't want the sibling thing to be unequal for gosh sakes ]. Seeing as the one man one woman, the definition of "traditional marriage", would not hold any longer if we do away with the concept ... what is to stop me from marrying my 73 love mates which include my two siblings [assuming they are all consenting, my siblings have been rendered infertile and all of us are of age...but of course we could change all those annoying/unnecessary prerequisites later,right? ].

Give me my equal protection, I demand it. You gave it to them, you are going to discriminate against me and all these others simply based on some arbitrary number and that some of us are related... what is the state's compelling interest in not allowing us 74 to be married together?

Who will our marriage specifically hurt? You? You see, that is how the game is being currently, and will be in the future, played.

Click to expand...

It will be up to them to make the challenge and present their legal arguments in court. Such arguments will prevail or fail on their own merits. Some seem to thing that becaues A happens, then that means the B can't have other issues involved which preclude their ability to prevail.

There are a number of arguments against Bigamy. Polygamy refers only to one man marrying multiple women, to be contrasted with polyandry in which the woman marries multiple husbands. Polygamy includes 1:N wives only, polyandry includes 1:N husbands only - while bigamy could theoretically include N:N wives and husbands.

There are many arguments against bigamy from a historical perspective that if managed properly would no longer be a large issue.

1. 1. In the past such societies were almost exclusively polygamous and structured in such a way as to be abusive to women. Women were viewed almost as property and were expected to be subservient to the man.
2. 2. It was not uncommon for older men to exercise political (or religious) "power" over community such that very young women were forced into marriages with these older men (often much older) and left with no means of escape from the community. (i.e. statutory rape with no means of escape.)
3. 3. High concentrations of polygamous marriages tends to skew the natural ratios of the available male/females in a given population. If you have one man marrying multiple women, those women are effectively removed from the - ah - market so to speak. Now you have an increased number of males while at the same time having a shortage of available females. Leading to problems with how to deal with the males who were often excluded from the community.

Now, these reasons may not be as valid today in a modern western civilization society - although many of these problems might still be applicable to African and Middle-Eastern societies. Much larger and more mobile populations also reduces the impact of past wrongs which occurred in isolated enclaves.


However from a modern perspective there are still valid reasons against legalized bigamy.

Legal View: There is no legal framework to deal with partners in a Civil Marriage that exceeds two persons and the issues that are already complex enough dealing with two individuals and possibly children let alone increasing those issues exponentially with each additional spouse.

In each bigamous marriage, there would be at a minimum three legally intertwined status:
A married to B,
A married to C, and
B married to C.

Add a fourth spouse and you get:
A married to B
A married to C
A married to D
B married to C
B married to D
C married to D

Add a fifth spouse and you get:
A married to B
A married to C
A married to D
A married to E
B married to C
B married to D
B married to E
C married to D
C married to E
E married to D

Add another, etc...

Then take it to 74 spouses.

So you have issues with property on who owns what, what was brought into the marriage when. If C decides he/she no longer wants to be part of the plural marriage to what extent is he/she awarded property from A, B, D, and E.

You have issues also with children. Who are the parents. The biological parents or are all adults in a plural marriage equally parents. In the event of a divorce who gets child custody? Visitation? Child support? etc...

When the discussion is about marriage between two consenting adults the current legal system will support it because laws, courts, etc... are geared toward dealing with the same situations. Linear increases in the number of spouses causes an exponential increase on the courts in dealing with those issues.


So there is a secular reason to be leery of bigamy as a government recognized entity that has nothing to do with religion or morality.


>>>>

Sounds as though you are right, you did not understand the question.

If there is an amendment to a Constitution one cannot simply change it by passing a law or by the State Supreme Court saying it is unconstitutional if the amendment was passed and ratified legally. The amendment would change that state's Constititution and the Supreme Court would be obliged to maintain the integrity of the law/amendment under the new framework created by the amendment. State Supreme Courts are not the Federal Supreme Court, the SCOTUS has yet to decide if such laws are Constitutional.

One usually must, depending on that state's constitution, repeal an amendment through the means agreed upon under that Constitution. A state Supreme Court is not allowed to just change things as they may want them to be, they are guided by the law and the state constitution.

For instance, under the US Constitution we had an amendment, #18, which prohibited the manufacture, sale and transportation of alcohol...which was repealed by passing the 21st amendment allowing the resumption of those activities. That was a legit manner of repeal of an amendment.

So, were the over-turnings of SSM/CU bans and definitions of marriage amendments accomplished through the proper means?

And yes, I was/am aware that some may have been only statutory and some were amendments.

Henrin said:

If that was the goal then people would be arguing that all private contracts pertaining to marriage between consenting parties must be respected by all fifty states. What is actually happening is people are arguing for extending government authority in marriage by expanding its domain to another form of relationship between two individuals. People are not arguing for freedom, but simply for government authority.

Click to expand...

A very interesting and very warped view of what is happening. Government authority is being ROLLED back, not extended. The extension has already occurred when STATE governments banned gay marriage or 'defended' the definition of marriage to exclude same sex.

People are wanting this Government over reach rolled back and the Government to return to the more bureaucratic side of marriage- the issuance of licenses and acknowledgement of the same rights as any other married couple.

Gaugingcatenate said:

Sounds as though you are right, you did not understand the question.

Click to expand...

Actually I did. The failure may have been mine to not explain myself in detail.

Gaugingcatenate said:

If there is an amendment to a Constitution one cannot simply change it by passing a law or by the State Supreme Court saying it is unconstitutional if the amendment was passed and ratified legally. The amendment would change that state's Constititution and the Supreme Court would be obliged to maintain the integrity of the law/amendment under the new framework created by the amendment. State Supreme Courts are not the Federal Supreme Court, the SCOTUS has yet to decide if such laws are Constitutional.

One usually must, depending on that state's constitution, repeal an amendment through the means agreed upon under that Constitution. A state Supreme Court is not allowed to just change things as they may want them to be, they are guided by the law and the state constitution.

Click to expand...

This is true. State Constitutional bans cannot be overturned by State Supreme Courts which are bound by that State's Constitution. The question that I was asked was that of those 17 States where SSCM exist did it in a legal manner. The answer is "Yes".

Gaugingcatenate said:

For instance, under the US Constitution we had an amendment, #18, which prohibited the manufacture, sale and transportation of alcohol...which was repealed by passing the 21st amendment allowing the resumption of those activities. That was a legit manner of repeal of an amendment.

Click to expand...

Correct.

As another example. The State of Alabama passed a State Constitutional amendment to ban interracial marriage. Since it was in the State Constitution the Alabama Supreme Court could not strike such a ban. However that constitutional amendment was rendered invalid based on the United States Supreme Court (Federal) ruling that such provisions were unconstitutional.

That is a legit manner of overturning unconstitutional laws.

Gaugingcatenate said:

So, were the over-turnings of SSM/CU bans and definitions of marriage amendments accomplished through the proper means?

Click to expand...

So, to repeat the previous answer "Yes" they were accomplished through proper means which included:



In no case has a State Supreme Court struck down a State Constitutional amendment.

Gaugingcatenate said:

And yes, I was/am aware that some may have been only statutory and some were amendments.

Click to expand...

That's good. Some don't.



>>>>

Gaugingcatenate said:

Sounds as though you are right, you did not understand the question. If there is an amendment to a Constitution one cannot simply change it by passing a law or by the State Supreme Court saying it is unconstitutional if the amendment was passed and ratified legally. The amendment would change that state's Constititution and the Supreme Court would be obliged to maintain the integrity of the law/amendment under the new framework created by the amendment. State Supreme Courts are not the Federal Supreme Court, the SCOTUS has yet to decide if such laws are Constitutional. One usually must, depending on that state's constitution, repeal an amendment through the means agreed upon under that Constitution. A state Supreme Court is not allowed to just change things as they may want them to be, they are guided by the law and the state constitution. For instance, under the US Constitution we had an amendment, #18, which prohibited the manufacture, sale and transportation of alcohol...which was repealed by passing the 21st amendment allowing the resumption of those activities. That was a legit manner of repeal of an amendment. So, were the over-turnings of SSM/CU bans and definitions of marriage amendments accomplished through the proper means? And yes, I was/am aware that some may have been only statutory and some were amendments.

Click to expand...

That does of course leave the Ultimate Courts of the land, the Federal system, to rule on any state constitutional amendment or provision.

it is of some note that when the CONs, such as they are, controlled both Houses and the Oval Office there was no serious attempt to put a 'defense of marriage' amendment or outright ban on same sex marriage in the Federal Constitution. best effort was a federal law.

1750Texan said:

Unless you consider your contention silly, I did not.

Your contention was quite clear...I understand your treatment of my question as silly, because I brought a direct challenge to your contention. One you do not have an answer to.

It was a simple question. Where did your interpretation of the meaning of the 14th amendment come from?

"...the 14th does not allow for an expansion of rights, it only equally protects all under current law. The logic is precise, undeniable."

These are your words, your contention, your interpretation.

Click to expand...

And well, I stick by my "words", my "contention", my "interpretation". I submit all those come from being a sentient being understanding the English language and grammar. A study of our history, government, the Constitution itself doesn't hurt, either.

The law of the land is our fine Constitution.

Now I will ask the requisite opposing question, where does the 14th say that it is an expansion of rights beyond those under the current law? If there are no laws in limitation of a right... the right is already expanded. Capiche?

So, just where is your concrete example that I requested that you have somehow completely forgotten to provide? You obviously contend that they exist, so please elucidate... or we will have to assume this to be one tilting at windmills.