Federal judge strikes down AL marriage ban :) (employment, ethics, attorneys)

[Dane_in_LA]

Originally Posted by Hellion1999

the laws are being applied equally for Heterosexual, Bisexual and Homosexuals.

You think you're clever, and that's sad. Saudi Arabia's laws on religion are being applied equally for Christians, Jews and Muslims - they all have the exact same right to worship Allah.

[Dane_in_LA]

Originally Posted by catfishin2000

the only issue I have is with the use of the word "Marriage."
That is a word with an existing definition. If two gay folks want to enter into a binding union, then it needs it's own word. I don't care if they live together. I don't care if they have all the legal and other benefits of a married couple, just come up with your own word.

What the courts are doing is not protecting rights, they are redefining the meaning of words. That I don't like.

<shrug> You can thank the bigots who made damn sure that they didn't just ban the use of the term marriage, but took great care to make sure that no same-sex formal relationship with marriage-like benefits could be allowed to exist in their states.

Originally Posted by Alabama Constitution

No marriage license shall be issued in the State of Alabama to parties of the same sex...

A union replicating marriage of or between persons of the same sex in the State of Alabama or in any other jurisdiction shall be considered and treated in all respects as having no legal force or effect in this state and shall not be recognized by this state as a marriage or other union replicating marriage.

Classic overreach. Wanted it all, now they're getting nothing.

[Dane_in_LA]

Originally Posted by MMM05

I did say it, pal.

Wait and SEE.

Where have we heard that before? Are you going to send the governor to stand in a doorway or something?

South Postpones Rising Again For Yet Another Year | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

[~HecateWhisperCat~]

Originally Posted by Hellion1999

The Equal Protection Clause does two things. First it applies the 1st 10 amendments to the states, which up until that point it had not done.
Second if applies all Federal equally across all states, mainly arising from the Dredd Scott ruling in which citizenship requirements were not applied equally to all (This is why Scott was returned to MO as a slave, since he was not deemed to be a Citizen while residing freely in IL).

What the 14th Amendment does not do, is apply State Laws across State Lines. Each State still has its own Sovereign right to make its own laws in accordance with Article I sections 8-11, and 9th and 10th Amendments. If it was intended to apply laws equally across state lines, all laws of all states would be required to be uniform to afford this. The language of the 14th Amendment does not in any respect supersede the 10th Amendment reserving rights not outlined in Article Sections 8-11 of powers given to the Federal Government or Forbidden by the States, are reserved by the states and People Respectively.

Since the regulation of Marriage is not a power delegated to the Federal Government, nor is it forbidden to the States, nor outlined in any other Amendment, that power is hence reserved by the States First IAW the 10th Amendment. Since the 14th Amendment applies ONLY Federal Laws equally among the States (including the Bill Of Rights) this does not violate the equal protection Clause of the 14th amendment.

No, but it guarantees those laws are applied equally when they are there. A law that denies someone the same right as another is not an equal law. A state must have extremely good reasoning to do so.

[~HecateWhisperCat~]

Originally Posted by Hellion1999

where in the 14th amendment includes marriage laws????


If the last clause is your argument, the counter of how it does not violate this is, Heterosexual persons are also not allowed to marry the same sex, hence the law is being applied equally to Homosexual persons who are also denied the same. I.e, A Heterosexual person has no more choice in who they can marry than a Homosexual person, both are equally restrained by the same age and sex requirements of who can be the spouse. Since this is applied equally to both (the 14th Amendment does not state it has to be liked in the manner, just that it has to be equal) these laws do not violate the 14th Amendment. Now if a state made differing requirements for Hetero and Homo sexual relationships, it would in fact violate equal protection.

It doesn't have to include them. Rights not in the Constitution are still considered protected by it.

[Hellion1999]

Originally Posted by Lucidkitty

No, but it guarantees those laws are applied equally when they are there. A law that denies someone the same right as another is not an equal law. A state must have extremely good reasoning to do so.

how is gender requirement and age requirement that is applied to all citizens equally a violation of the 14th amendment? its ONE standard/requirement for all?


if that's the case why not take all the employers to court for equal pay under the law? or free housing for everybody or free WIK for everybody.

Many States and the people have define marriage between 1 man and 1 woman and the age requirement. That law is applied equally to all. That is not a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.


if a state has a state law that helps financially SINGLES MOTHERS of low income your argument is that is a violation of the 14th amendment because its a law that is not applied to everyone equally?

[Hellion1999]

Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA

You think you're clever, and that's sad. Saudi Arabia's laws on religion are being applied equally for Christians, Jews and Muslims - they all have the exact same right to worship Allah.

why its sad because I know how to interpret the constitution and you don't?

I believe workers should get paid higher wages and have better benefits but I'm not going to re-invent the 14th amendment so everybody is "EQUAL".....if you do put it in the constitution and the proper procedure by referendum and state vote as the constitution demands it. Don't ignore our constitution just because its a social cause you support.



Saudi Arabia laws violates the 1st amendment of our constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

[MMM05]

Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA

Where have we heard that before? Are you going to send the governor to stand in a doorway or something?

South Postpones Rising Again For Yet Another Year | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

Surthern Hospitality

Nunthin' like it !!

[Dane_in_LA]

Originally Posted by Hellion1999

why its sad because I know how to interpret the constitution and you don't?

You didn't approach Constitutional debate, your problem lies in forming an argument in the first place.

However, if you want to go the Constitutional route, Loving v. Virginia removed the underpinnings from your silly sophistry. "Everyone is free to marry someone of the same race" was rolled out to prove that anti-miscegenation laws couldn't possibly be called discriminatory, and a bunch of Southern good-ole-boys, once again, found themselves on the wrong side of history. (And decency, as if they cared...)

Saudi Arabia laws violates the 1st amendment of our constitution:

Sigh. As per your argument, they're not discriminatory. Which was the point of the example.

[SilverBulletZ06]

Originally Posted by jjrose

There are laws that say a man can not marry a man, like a woman can. And a woman can not marry a woman, like a man can. The legal protections and privileges can not all be covered with legal documents that are not marriage. And equal protections ARE guaranteed by the constitution.

How about this:
Any consenting adult can marry another consenting adult regardless of the sex of the parties.

1) That means you need a new law. The state has a law that says a man and a woman can get married. If people are gay then they obviously can't take advantage of that, nor can I make a girl get an abortion (after all, according to you I need the equal right of being able to abort a baby, right?).

2) There is no constitutional right to marriage, so there is no constitutional guarantee of marriage either. A state can dissolve any ability to marry one another in its entirety.

3) Your law would work if the state wants to enact it, or if congress wanted to enact it, or not depending on legislative agendas. However, an enacted law is NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE.


I do note however that you have skipped over the other forms of actual Constitutional Guarantee's which actually have those laws in place. Maybe we should work on actually ensuring that the Constitution as written is fully enforces (against the government as intended and not against the citizens as is currently the norm) before we start making up rights to feed the current ego of the populous.