ras, I read the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause and due process clause to prohibit a state from denying equality in marital rights same-gender couples. Others may (and do) disagree with that.
But under my interpretation of the 14th Amdt, as it applies to discrimination between genders and orientations that cannot be justified by a legitimate state interest, the 9th Amdt is trumped. The 9th addresses powers that have not been bestowed on the federal government. The 14th Amdt addresses proscriptions we have placed on the reach of state action.
Yes, indeed, I now see that you and I have radically different perspectives on what I think are fundamental rights, which may be what you were alluding to last night.
p.s. if it relevant to you, the 5th Amdt due process guarantee (the one that operates on the federal govt) has likewise been interpreted to incorporate a guarantee of equal protection.
p.p.s. I recognize fully that states define the meaning of property in most instances, and that states define what constitutes marriage. But in my view there is no difference in kind between (i) the fact that under the U.S. constitution states may not proscribe inter-racial marriages and (ii) my interpretation of the 14th Amdt that would prohibit states from proscribing same-gender marriages. In both cases, the states cannot articulate a legitimate state interest (and a religious view does not count in this regard) in prohibiting to two gays a union that is permitted to two heterosexuals.
--- In Dems2008@yahoogroups.com, "raschueller" <raschueller@...> wrote:
>
> --- In Dems2008@yahoogroups.com, "citation502" citation502@ wrote:
> >
> > ras, if you read the Ninth Amendment you will quickly see that the
> > Fourteenth amendment trumps the 9th where it addresses a question
> >
>
> All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to
> the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the
> State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law
> which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
> United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life,
> liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any
> person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
>
>
> Operative word there is STATE. It says nothing about the federal
> government. And the Supreme court is the final arbiter as to whether
> state law is constitutional or not.
>
> The supreme court has pulled the 9th amendment, "The enumeration in
> the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or
> disparage others retained by the people." to link those rights to
> federal law.
>
> But to be honest looking at the legal issue... where the 14th has been
> used to support the concept of "right to privacy" or more in vogue
> "liberty" has been fairly restricted lately. Without getting into
> court specifics, there has been a strong move strict interpretation
> and the issue in the courts continues to be doomed to fail.
>
> At any rate the point is: this is NOT an issue the candidate needs to
> talk about because they will get TRASHED. Its a looser. This is about
> what wins elections, and this issue is a giant can of worms.
>
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
__,_._,___
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder