--- In Dems2008@yahoogroups.com, "citation502" <citation502@...>
wrote:
>
>
> Rick, Thos. Jefferson died about 40 yrs before the 14th Amdt's
guarantee
> of equal protection was adopted. You can argue that equal
protection
> does not extend to striking down distinctions based on sexual
> orientation that have no legitimate state interest. Thom. would not
> have done so if he were alive.
>
>
> --- In Dems2008@yahoogroups.com, "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
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Dems2008/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Dems2008/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:Dems2008-digest@yahoogroups.com
mailto:Dems2008-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Dems2008-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder