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@yahoo.com> 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