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.
Yep, and it was the purview of the elected legislators not the Court to define marriage and decide if there would be gay marriage or not. There's also state's rights issue. The public was against gay marriage, and the media went on a gay propaganda blitz campaign until a majority supported it. So gay marriage would have been legislated eventually. It'd still be bad law but at least it would come about in a legitimate way.
Yeah, why couldn't these people just wait another couple of decades to get equal protection under the law?
So not allowing murder is discrimination now? Allowing gays a civil union instead of a traditional marriage is discrimination?
Abortion is not murder. Murder is a legal term that does not include abortion.
And yes, we have already dealt with separate but equal. It never was equal.
Yeah, why couldn't these people just wait another couple of decades to get equal protection under the law?
Why should homosexuality have equal protection? I reject your premise. Homosexuals had the same protection under the law as heterosexuals did. But anyway, equal protection under the law in the constitution originally meant criminal law and was referring to black citizens. It's been quite changed from its origin.
Why should homosexuality have equal protection? I reject your premise. Homosexuals had the same protection under the law as heterosexuals did. But anyway, equal protection under the law in the constitution originally meant criminal law and was referring to black citizens. It's been quite changed from its origin.
Because we are American citizens and are guaranteed equal protection under the law by the US constitution.
Sorry, it applies to all Americans, even those that you may not approve of.
Guess live and let live is too much for some people...
Live and let live by forcefully desecrating the definition of a religious institution? I don't think so.
Gays should be able to become legally bound with the same rights and privileges as married couples (within certain limits having to do with child welfare). No serious person contests that.
In order to get along with a large part of this nation, because you know that compromise is what adults do when they want to get along, the move was to call it something other than "marriage" in the legal documents.
They can even call it marriage at home, or whatever they wish of course.
The Left specifically fought against that.
To demand the "privilege" of being wed under the same mechanism and legal definition as married people, which isn't necessary to realize the same legal effect, is a purposeful and spiteful slap in the face to this nation's religious communities.
Which is unfortuante because it means that this large religious community isn't likely going to be as politically flexible this time around. You have to give respect to get it.
Last, gays and their marriage supporters in 2020 tend to disrepsectfully speak to conservatives in this nation in the false context of gay marriage resting on something stronger than a supreme court decision. Which is not smart in terms of the long game.
Neither was tranny story hour and childhood hormone blockers, which are now all wrapped up into the same box as gay marriage in the mind of the Nation. You should have taken your win and held fast instead of declaring the next hill almost on the very next day.
All that gays did by doing that is bring their last legal triumph along for the ride should this go the other way for them, in that gay marriage plainly looks like a legal step for things that this nation will never stomach.
So now you know where to put your "live and let live". The irrelgious Left wanted to be defined in religious terminology in order to attack the boundaries of religious life, and wanted childhood hormone blockers and tranny exposure. The rest of the Nation, in the coming couple of decades and in response, as well will tell you where to put your phrase in case you are still confused.
Equal protection clause, 14th amendment: "...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Quote:
I reject your premise.
Oh noes. But as it also happens to be the premise of a 5-4 decision of the US Supreme court, I think that - on the balance - I'm inclined to not care all that much.
“Congress shall make no law … abridging freedom of speech.” From the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights.
Consider the words of Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Justice Oliver. In the 1892 case of McAuliffe v. City of New Bedford, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote that with regard to a police officer’s First Amendment rights, he “may have a constitutional right to talk politics, but he has no constitutional right to be a policeman.”
She has a Constitutional right to "practice her religion" but she has no Constitutional right to be a County clerk.
Denying the appeal was a slam dunk but I don't see the courts changing anything regarding SSM. I still don't understand Justice Thomas comment regarding label, what in gods name does that have to do with anything related to the case or the constitution.
Kim Davis who had 4 marriages and some affairs along the way worrying about labels, come on.
Equal protection clause, 14th amendment: "...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Oh noes. But as it also happens to be the premise of a 5-4 decision of the US Supreme court, I think that - on the balance - I'm inclined to not care all that much.
I'm a real American and know what the 14th amendment equal protection clause actually originally meant. It was speaking to criminal laws and the freed black citizens. I don't need you or any liberals to redefine its original meaning.
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.
