EpicDude86
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2009
- Messages
- 4,384
- Reaction score
- 822
- Location
- Epic Mountain
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
An essence of being gay is to share deep emotions and life with a person of the same sex, so legally allowing a gay person to marry (the expression of that emotion) a person of the opposite sex is no right at all. Loving v. Virginia struck down similar arguments. The Court typically uses strict scrutiny to deal with issues of race, which probably would not be used on gay issues, but it could still pass same-sex marriage by way of rational basis (used in past cases involving gay rights) or even intermediate scrutiny (not as likely).
The intent of the 14th Amendment was to prevent the States from denying people their rights under the Constitution. It makes no mention of race, regardless of being a catalyst to its creation. As a matter of fact, the framers of the 14th Amendment had the opportunity to include race in it, but they chose not to.
"On December 5, 1865, Congressman Thaddeus Stevens, another prominent Radical Republican, proposed a constitutional amendment declaring, 'All national and state laws shall be equally applicable to every citizen, and no discrimination shall be made on account of race and color.'"
As we know, that Amendment was not passed but the more broad version was. It provides for all citizens to receive Equal Protection.
If Congress, at the time, meant for the 14th Amendment to be strictly used for race issues only, why was it not passed that way?
14th Amendment Site
I wonder if we could prove that Love knows no gender...though we'd have to prove love exists beyond a chemical reaction in the brain and it does it fact ignore gender when determining who to love.