Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 in order to protect the rights of freed slaves. Note that women did not get the right to vote until 1920. Those who drafted and ratified it thus interpreted it much differently than you do. They probably would have been dumbstruck if told that they had imposed 'gay marriage.'
Fair point, women weren't equals until even after 1920 when you consider most women didn't work and instead stayed at home and never went to college unless they were spinsters. Into the 1970's homosexuals were highly discriminated against themselves if you remember map makers getting fired for being gay and men arrested for being baited by cops at Stonewall bars. Now they aren't allowed to marry or have the same rights and privileges of traditional married couples because of religious ideals and "ick" factor. As you said earlier, isn't there a separation of church and state?
Quote:
You could argue that the implication of gay marriage lay in the 14th, that it just took 150 years to be realized. This is my argument on the First Amendment, that although it does not contain 'separation of church and state,' the seeds were there.
That was a part of the First Amendment actually with the free exercise of religion. This is along with freedom of the press, freedom of speech, right to assembly and right to petition.
Quote:
However, you have to have some principle that limits equality under the law. Is it a violation of the 14th amendment that a drunk can legally buy his booze, but a junkie can't legally buy his junk? Where does it stop? Is it a violation that I can't practice law because I haven't passed the bar? That a cop can drive solo in the HOV lane, and I can't?
These are a bit different and some are in fact baiting based on the situation.
One, a drunk can legally buy booze unless it is for immediate consumption until to the point the bar keep thinks they should be cut off (typically stumbling and slurring of words.) This is a protection of the bar business. a junkie on the other hand is typically buying illegally since the 1910's. Alcohol isn't exactly as inherently addictive or lethal as the stuff the junkie uses (if it's not marjiuana.)
Two, you can't practice law because that is licensed. It would be like practicing medicine without an MD. If you don't have a license, why would people go to you.
Three, the cop can if they have their lights flashing, the same as any emergency vehicle. Wouldn't you want a police cruiser, fire engine or ambulance to help as fast as they can if you were in need?
Quote:
Face it, the 14th amendment argument is just a ploy to get nationwide gay marriage imposed through the courts, since it can't be obtained through the ballot box, at least at this time.
Most of the gay marriage lawsuits right now are actually because of propositions limiting marriage by law as well as state constitutions that already did that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow
Kinda went around the question, did ya.
Then Government must not treat us all equally, as everyone assumes the 14th amendment dictates..
Some are special.(Dana Carvey voice)
It was "kinda went around the question," only because the question itself is a trap. History showed that government infringed on those rights from day 1 after the Constitution was ratified. Why not because of government, but society. Government is just the tool society used. Women were bared from voting until 1920, black men were no even given the right to vote in the north until the 15th Amendment. Despite the 14th Amendment, states were allowed for nearly 90 years to give separate but equal accommodations that often gave Black people lesser service.
Quote:
Why does government get to pick the winners and losers, if we are all treated equally by the government?????
Ask the rich like the Koch brothers who put money where they want it in elections.
Quote:
Are they trying to make everyone equally poor, or are they treating everyone equally?
What does income inequality have to do with it besides government acting for money than for the people?
These are a bit different and some are in fact baiting based on the situation.
I don't know what that even means. I'm just trying to make the point that the 14th does not prescribe perfect and unlimited equality.
Quote:
One, a drunk can legally buy booze unless it is for immediate consumption until to the point the bar keep thinks they should be cut off (typically stumbling and slurring of words.) This is a protection of the bar business. a junkie on the other hand is typically buying illegally since the 1910's. Alcohol isn't exactly as inherently addictive or lethal as the stuff the junkie uses (if it's not marjiuana.)
Two, you can't practice law because that is licensed. It would be like practicing medicine without an MD. If you don't have a license, why would people go to you.
Three, the cop can if they have their lights flashing, the same as any emergency vehicle. Wouldn't you want a police cruiser, fire engine or ambulance to help as fast as they can if you were in need?
A drunk can be a drunk in the US without violating the laws. A junkie can't. Is that a violation of the 14th amendment requirement of equality? At least in my state, a cop can drive in the HOV lane at any time, whether responding to an emergency or not. Is that a violation of the 14th?
These are forms of inequality, but I don't think that they are unconstitutional.
Here is maybe a better example. In Iran they have a concept of temporary marriage, which is actually used to facilitate legal prostitution there. The john and prostitution go through a temporary marriage before their session, which terminates upon the end of the session. The Mullah gets a cut, the prostitute doesn't have to worry about arrest, and the john gets laid...everybody's happy. Married for a Minute | Mother Jones
Does it violate the 14th that a john and hooker in the US do not have such provision for temp. marriage?
The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 in order to protect the rights of freed slaves. Note that women did not get the right to vote until 1920. Those who drafted and ratified it thus interpreted it much differently than you do. They probably would have been dumbstruck if told that they had imposed 'gay marriage.'
That's true. A lot has changed since then.
I think the founders, all exceptionally well-educated for their time, knew that societies change over time, and in fact, they were open to that change - obviously. They were not trying to preserve their new nation in amber, they were trying to lay down principles which would form a bedrock around which change could occur. The 14th, I think, is based on the constitutional principle that all citizens are legally equal. The 14th does not set up a new citizenship category, it widens who may be considered a full citizen, and says that citizens must be treated equally whichever state they find themselves in.
Whatever the sponsors of the 14th thought in their hearts, I find it hard to believe that among those who voted to ratify it, there were none who realized that the language could accommodate greater suffrage than it presently allowed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz
You could argue that the implication of gay marriage lay in the 14th, that it just took 150 years to be realized. This is my argument on the First Amendment, that although it does not contain 'separation of church and state,' the seeds were there.
However, you have to have some principle that limits equality under the law. Is it a violation of the 14th amendment that a drunk can legally buy his booze, but a junkie can't legally buy his junk? Where does it stop? Is it a violation that I can't practice law because I haven't passed the bar? That a cop can drive solo in the HOV lane, and I can't?
The principle that you are seeking is simple and well-known. The government can constrain individual behavior if there is a compelling public purpose for doing so. I don't think that any branch of government is infallible in this regard, but that is the standard for which they ought to aim. And of course, this means that public purpose is allowed to change as times change. I highly doubt that "this behavior is non-traditional and/or icky" meets the public purpose standard for constraining individuals. There has to be a more substantive reason than that. An opinion article on Salon focusses on this aspect of the arguments made yesterday - Traditional marriage gets a SCOTUS smackdown: The incomprehensible right-wing logic that’s poised to go down in flames - Salon.com (The headline is inflammatory, the article is not.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz
Face it, the 14th amendment argument is just a ploy to get nationwide gay marriage imposed through the courts, since it can't be obtained through the ballot box, at least at this time.
I don't view it that way at all. It's an argument about citizenship, and that is the basis on which the SCOTUS granted certiorari for this case. The reason why I am so interested in this issue even though I have no personal stake in it at all is precisely that it gets to the issue of what it means to be a citizen of a free country. It seems a no-brainer to me that the trend should be toward as much inclusiveness and equality before the law as possible.
Maybe the statement should read, "You cannot support both Ted Cruz and Gay rights."
Yeah that is the way I took it from the get go honestly. However we all know with politics, it is all about rhetoric. This was just disgust at a gay hotel owner being boycotted due to having someone who would allow gays to not have equal rights.
You know what they say, "What goes around, comes around."
Quote:
At least twice while serving as Dallas' mayor, Republican Tom Leppert marched in Dallas' gay pride parade. Opponent Ted Cruz has hammered Leppert for joining the marches. Cruz said, "When a mayor of a city chooses twice to march in a parade celebrating gay pride that's a statement and it's not a statement I agree with."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
