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.
First the Bill of Rights absolutely has more clout than does the amendments that follow them. The Bill of Rights was added to the constitution in order to get states to sign on to the constitution. They were part of the deal, without them some of the states would not agree to the constitution. That being the case, violating the amendments in the Bill of Rights is really breaking the contract that is our federal union. You say violating the 10th amendment is ok??? Well that amounts to nullifying our constitution. Freedom of speech and the right to bear arms are also often assaulted by liberals, and with the same constitutional consequences.
The Bill of Rights ARE amendments.
All the Constitutional Amendments have equal clout, because they are a part of the Constitution.
And we heard the same thing when the Supreme Court ruled for Bush in his first election, The "hanging chad" election.
People ALWAYS support a judges ruling when they agree with it and trash the court when they rule against.
Don't forget at one time the Supreme Court ruled that black's were only 1/3 human.
They are NOT infallible.
Wait...WHAT? The Supreme Court ruled that blacks were only 1/3 human? That is not true.
Perhaps you are making a reference to the fact that when the Constitution was ratified and the South had a concentrated number of slaves, that the founders reached a compromise that for the sake of the census, each slave would represent 3/5ths of a person. The reason behind that was to dilute the voting power of Southern slaveholders who wanted to count each slave as one person (albeit a person they owned) and the founders knew that this would result in unequal voting power in the South.
Or perhaps you are thinking of the Dred Scott case, in which the SC ruled that slaves were property and should not be afforded the rights of free people.
HISTORICAL NOTE: A state court in Virginia upheld the ownership rights of Anthony Johnson (a black man) to John Casor (another black man) ...effectively making a black man the first legally sanctioned slave owner America.
First the Bill of Rights absolutely has more clout than does the amendments that follow them. The Bill of Rights was added to the constitution in order to get states to sign on to the constitution. They were part of the deal, without them some of the states would not agree to the constitution. That being the case, violating the amendments in the Bill of Rights is really breaking the contract that is our federal union. You say violating the 10th amendment is ok??? Well that amounts to nullifying our constitution. Freedom of speech and the right to bear arms are also often assaulted by liberals, and with the same constitutional consequences.
Now the equal protection clause wielded by liberals like a club, the one that you cited along with countless other supporters of this judicial tyranny in this thread could be used for many other fringe causes. The first group that comes to mind is the polygamists, they are being denied equal protection under the laws too are they not??? Should they also have the right to marry who they want??? If you don't support their right to marry 10 women then you must be a bigot right??? What about people who want to marry their cousin, or sister???? They are out there, they have rights too. How about people who want to marry an animal, or themselves??? We have laws banning ex cons from voting in some states, they have paid for their crime right??? those laws could be challenged using this clause In the 14th amendment. The law makes judgments about behavior all the time(discriminates), and homosexuality is a behavior. Also the 14th amendment was written to protect the rights of racial minorities, not the rights of every fringe group that would rise up over the next 150 years. They (congress) could never have imagined the causes it would be used for or it would have been more specifically worded.
The state of Alabama has every right to pass laws that reflect its value system. So does the state of Massachusetts. If you cannot live with Alabama gay marriage bans then you are free to move to a northern state that has willingly passed laws allowing for gay marriage. Different regions of the nation have different values, and the beauty of a free nation is that we can move to where we feel comfortable. What we don't have the right to do is use the federal power to violate the rights of the states or people of the south because the prevailing political power in Washington currently is in the hands of radical liberals. These tactics will not force the people of the south or any other red states to accept gay marriage, it will make them bitter, angry and even more resentful of extreme federal power. Pick up a history book and look and see how we have reacted to overbearing federal power in the past. I am not saying this issue could cause secession or civil war, but this heaped on with all the other insults could contribute to an environment where it becomes more possible. Has anyone seen those billboards here in the south that say "secede", or does anyone remember the petitions signed by millions in 2012 that called for the secession of many conservative states after Obama was restored to his throne in 12'? If you violate peoples rights they become angry, and it shows you have no respect for the rights of people who don't hold the values that northern liberals expect they should have.
First of all, what in law says that the Bill of Rights has any legal precedence over the rest of the constitution? We could pass an amendment nullifying any of those 10 amendments and it would be very much legal. had we repeal the 8th amendment, water boarding would've never been an issue. Likewise, we could ban guns ... but we need to amend the constitution to cancel the 2nd amendment.
I don't think anybody is for taking away the 10th amendment. If we did that, then the states wouldn't effectively be states anymore. However, if the 10th amendment takes precedent over any amendment chronologically listed under it, that makes the amendment process worthless.
As far as a moral debate into polygamy or incest, what does it matter? Polygamy would need a complete rework of contract law to accompany, as the design of marriage law is based between two people, not multiple parties. With incest, why should the state care what 2 family members in Arkansas arrange as an agreement between each other? As far as beastiality, A dog cannot consent to the contract, therefore it is legally not an option.
The State of Alabama has every right to pass what it wants to pass, but that doesn't mean they're allowed to enforce those laws. The State of Alabama cannot vote to ban free speech, just like it cannot vote to nullify the 14th amendment. If it doesn't like the 14th amendment, there is a process to repeal it. Just like there's a process to repeal or alter the 1st amendment and make this a Christian nation.
You're right though in saying that if you violate peoples rights they become angry. That's what the debate over gay marriage is about, denying the rights of same sex couples to enter into a contract with each other. You cannot discriminate on the basis of sex in this country (as per the 14th amendment, and further backed the Civil Rights Act), and that is exactly what you are doing by not allowing same sex couples to marry.
Since when are equal rights considered special rights..
When equal rights are not equal. One man cannot marry more than one woman. Where is the equality for polyamorous or polygamist relationships?
A fifteen year old person cannot marry anyone without the consent of a parent or judge. Where is the equality?
If those are not examples of groups that would be seeking special rights, then why are those relationships not afforded the same "equal rights" sought by the gay community?
When equal rights are not equal. One man cannot marry more than one woman. Where is the equality for polyamorous or polygamist relationships?
A fifteen year old person cannot marry anyone without the consent of a parent or judge. Where is the equality?
If those are not examples of groups that would be seeking special rights, then why are those relationships not afforded the same "equal rights" sought by the gay community?
See my above post regarding polygamy. However, it is well documented and set in precedence that there can legally be a two tier age group: minor and adult. Since a minor is legally under the guardianship of somebody else, they cannot legally make a decision for themselves.
When equal rights are not equal. One man cannot marry more than one woman. Where is the equality for polyamorous or polygamist relationships?
A fifteen year old person cannot marry anyone without the consent of a parent or judge. Where is the equality?
If those are not examples of groups that would be seeking special rights, then why are those relationships not afforded the same "equal rights" sought by the gay community?
Nice story bro . Equality under the law means just that, equality under the law. One man can marry one woman or one man *in many states*. A state denying him the ability to be married to multiple partners isn't denying his equality because he is allowed to wed. The state has a "wait for it" compelling interest to not allow marriage involving multiple partners. The same goes for a teenagers rights being limited. A teenager doesn't have the maturity to engage in a lot of pursuits, which is why the states cede that authority to their parents.
When equal rights are not equal. One man cannot marry more than one woman. Where is the equality for polyamorous or polygamist relationships?
Then those people are free to do what gays have done - make the case to the public. I suspect it will be a harder sell, and practically, it raises a lot more logistical problems. But they are free to raise the issue, and you are free to support those efforts. Then we'll see.
FWIW, I would, in principle, support a legally enforceable structure for poly relationships. I'm just not sure what it would look like. For instance, if a person in a legal poly relationship wants out, what rights, if any, does that person and all the other members in the relationship have regarding any or all of the children in the relationship? What responsibilities, economic and otherwise?
Quote:
Originally Posted by loriinwa
A fifteen year old person cannot marry anyone without the consent of a parent or judge. Where is the equality?
People under 18 are legally minors. If you want to make the case that 15-yo people should be legal adults, feel free. There is of course precedent for this, and there are examples around the world of legal adults younger than 18. This is one I would oppose, however, especially in light of the growing scientific evidence that human brains are not fully mature until around age 25, especially with regard to decision-making.
Quote:
Originally Posted by loriinwa
If those are not examples of groups that would be seeking special rights, then why are those relationships not afforded the same "equal rights" sought by the gay community?
Except in the case of property-owning white men, who have always had full civil rights, every other group of americans who are currently granted civil rights have had to make the case to the public, and especially to judges and elected representatives. It has never been a perfect process, in fact it has often been unjust, but it is the best one humans have come up with.
We don't get to vote on other peoples rights. If a law is unconstitutional it is unconstitutional, doesn't matter if it was voted on or passed by legislature.
Then why even put a law up for a vote if it is unconstitutional in the first place? I'm just saying that I can vote yea or nay on any law put up for a vote. It's my choice as a voter/citizen no matter who disagrees with the way I voted or if their "opinion" is that the way I voted violates someone's rights.
Why people who claim to be conservative want the government sticking its big snout into when consenting adults can get married escapes me.
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.
. Equality under the law means just that, equality under the law. One man can marry one woman or one man *in many states*. A state denying him the ability to be married to multiple partners isn't denying his equality because he is allowed to wed. The state has a "wait for it" compelling interest to not allow marriage involving multiple partners. The same goes for a teenagers rights being limited. A teenager doesn't have the maturity to engage in a lot of pursuits, which is why the states cede that authority to their parents.