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
>
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