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.
I'm not a lawyer but, I would say that the key phrase in the ruling is "To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law."
This statement would imply that race IS NOT the only classification that is 'directly subversive' to the 'principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment'.
Except the wording of his argument is not the wording of said amendment.
The 14th amendment does not mention race at all... the EP clause only mentions citizen as its criteria.
So you are again enacting Straw Man... you are focusing on the word Race to the exclusion of the point about "Principle of Equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment"
Said equality and equal protection clause states it is unconstitutional to amend the rights or immunities of any citizen, and that the state may not create or enforce any law that does so.
So what, as long as they don't violate the Constitution.
And if and when they do, that's what the courts are for.
so what?
the federal goverment and the 2 major parties within both violate the Constitution on a regular basis. you might not find a problem with that, but sure as heck do.
the federal goverment and the 2 major parties within both violate the Constitution on a regular basis. you might not find a problem with that, but sure as heck do.
Except the wording of his argument is not the wording of said amendment.
The 14th amendment does not mention race at all... the EP clause only mentions citizen as its criteria.
So you are again enacting Straw Man... you are focusing on the word Race to the exclusion of the point about "Principle of Equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment"
Said equality and equal protection clause states it is unconstitutional to amend the rights or immunities of any citizen, and that the state may not create or enforce any law that does so.
But if you agree with him that any such segregation is unconstitutional then why attack the post simply for mentioning race and a legal precedence? It was never stated that homosexuality was a race.. only that banning marriage based on sexual preference is protected under the same laws that protect race.
Correlation Vs Causation... the two groups can be correlated, but the nature of the groups are not the cause for why the acts against them are unconstitutional.... the fact that the act itself limits or amends the right of a natural citizen is the cause.
In short... any act that limits or amends the rights of any citizen is technically speaking unconstitutional and that is why the bans on gay marriage keep flip flopping. Sure those opposed can rally the cotes to push through a proposal or bill... but the courts can not approve said proposals or bills because they are unconstitutional.
That was a ruling based on race. Since when is homosexuality a race?
Is the heart or spirit of the ruling not that marriage is a basic right, intrinsic to the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness? Sure sounds like it to me.
If that's so, what *legal* reason is there to prevent ANY two consenting adults from being married?
You and filihok are agreeing, he/she is not the one that introduced the idea that homosexuality is not equivalent to race - that was JobZombie.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dampylle
But if you agree with him that any such segregation is unconstitutional then why attack the post simply for mentioning race and a legal precedence? It was never stated that homosexuality was a race.. only that banning marriage based on sexual preference is protected under the same laws that protect race.
Correlation Vs Causation... the two groups can be correlated, but the nature of the groups are not the cause for why the acts against them are unconstitutional.... the fact that the act itself limits or amends the right of a natural citizen is the cause.
In short... any act that limits or amends the rights of any citizen is technically speaking unconstitutional and that is why the bans on gay marriage keep flip flopping. Sure those opposed can rally the cotes to push through a proposal or bill... but the courts can not approve said proposals or bills because they are unconstitutional.
That is correct and also correct is that marriage is not mentioned anywhere in the constitution either.
And yet, the SCOTUS has ruled that marriage is a basic civil right. Shocking.
You know that not all of our rights are called out, individually, in the Constitution. Right?
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.
