Earth to Republican Rick: Virginia's prohibition on interracial marriages was invalidated by the Supreme Court as UNCONSTITUTIONAL. That's the "law that was changed."
--- In Dems2008@yahoogroups.com, "Rick" <y.bull@...> wrote:
>
> There were of course horible injustices visited on African Americans.
> The constitution ALLOWED it. The fact that we think it was horible
> wrong does not change what the law said, only what it SHOULD say.
> Thankfully, that law has been changed. This is how we do things in a
> Democracy. I've seen your "Good Republican answer" remark a couple
> times in here now. If that's what you call thinking that we need to
> work to convince the majority to see the wisdom of our ideas rather
> then getting a coute to just do what Mark wants, then so be it.
>
>
> --- In Dems2008@yahoogroups.com, Mark^o^ smiledaydream@ wrote:
> >
> > Equality.
> >
> > In 1960 there were still states where it was illegal for a white
> man to
> > marry a black woman.
> >
> > Most things covered by the constitution are not in the constitution.
> >
> > But great Republican answer.
> >
> >
> > --- Rick y.bull@ wrote:
> >
> > > What are you guys smoking? Do you really think Tom Jefferson and
> the
> > > boys were thinking about "gay rights?" There is NOTHING in the
> > > constitution about protecting sexual orientation. If you think
> there
> > > should be, I tell you the same thing I tell the people that think
> the
> > >
> > > constitution should be made to apply to the unborn: convence
> enough
> > > people to get it in there! Stop trying to argue that it IS there
> and
> > > courts should mandate your views just because you think it is the
> > > right thing to do. This is what democracy is all about.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In Dems2008@yahoogroups.com, "citation502" <citation502@>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 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.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > = M =
> > owner of significant cat
> >
>
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