Bunny Trails

[Ken]

“ I'm not sure what you actually are wanting "compromise" on. Do you want to roll back the 14th Amendment constitutional right of gay people to marry in this country (which 70% of the country supports) because 30% object?”

This is blatantly false. States like California held plebiscites and a majority of the voters chose to outlaw gay marriage. States like Ohio had legislatures who outlawed it.

The 14th amendment was not written in favour of gay marriage. None of the writers or signers of it promoted gay marriage.

The Supreme Court simply forced it on all 50 states. Same as how abortion was forced on all 50 states. Liberals force things on everyone else and then claim “the majority supports it, so it must stay”.

The Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment does apply.

Times change. There was a time when the Supreme Court ruled that the 14 Amendment didn't apply to women (Minor v. Happersett) or black people (Plessy v. Ferguson) either. Now it does.

Are you in favor of plebiscites determining constitutional rights or the courts doing it? Would you favor a national plebiscite on abortion? The latest polling suggests that Americans favor keeping Roe by about a 2 to 1 margin. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... oll-finds/

[JimFoxvog]

Accept that the election probably was quite irregular and focus on how to heal the country. “Healing the country” doesn’t mean convincing everyone who isn’t liberal they need to become more liberal. It means liberals have to accept conservatives’ concerns as legitimate and stop forcing cultural changes on them.

While the only irregularity of the election was the refusal of the loser to concede and his conspiracy to overthrow the election, the part about accepting conservatives' concerns as legitimate is important. Of course, it would help if conservatives respected liberals, also. The mutual lack of respect is what needs to change.

[Falco Underhill]

Times change. There was a time when the Supreme Court ruled that the 14 Amendment didn't apply to women (Minor v. Happersett) or black people (Plessy v. Ferguson) either. Now it does.

That's incorrect. No Court ever denied the 14th Amendment applied either to blacks or to women. At times there was a question of how it applied to them, but never whether it applied to them.

[Josh]

“ I'm not sure what you actually are wanting "compromise" on. Do you want to roll back the 14th Amendment constitutional right of gay people to marry in this country (which 70% of the country supports) because 30% object?”

This is blatantly false. States like California held plebiscites and a majority of the voters chose to outlaw gay marriage. States like Ohio had legislatures who outlawed it.

The 14th amendment was not written in favour of gay marriage. None of the writers or signers of it promoted gay marriage.

The Supreme Court simply forced it on all 50 states. Same as how abortion was forced on all 50 states. Liberals force things on everyone else and then claim “the majority supports it, so it must stay”.

The Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment does apply.

Times change. There was a time when the Supreme Court ruled that the 14 Amendment didn't apply to women (Minor v. Happersett) or black people (Plessy v. Ferguson) either. Now it does.

Are you in favor of plebiscites determining constitutional rights or the courts doing it? Would you favor a national plebiscite on abortion? The latest polling suggests that Americans favor keeping Roe by about a 2 to 1 margin. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... oll-finds/

I’m not in favour of a national plebiscite for anything.

Let the individual states set their own laws. If your state wants to allow abortion, okay (although I think it’s clearly unconstitutional to allow blatant murder). If my state wants to restrict abortion (which it does), it should be allowed to.

Gay marriage was forced on a democracy that didn’t want it. This includes California which had a very clear majority position against allowing it. It was overturned by the judiciary.

[temporal1]

.. No Court ever denied the 14th Amendment applied either to blacks or to women.
At times there was a question of how it applied to them, but never whether it applied to them.

Diamond.

[Ken]

Times change. There was a time when the Supreme Court ruled that the 14 Amendment didn't apply to women (Minor v. Happersett) or black people (Plessy v. Ferguson) either. Now it does.

That's incorrect. No Court ever denied the 14th Amendment applied either to blacks or to women. At times there was a question of how it applied to them, but never whether it applied to them.

That's kind of a distinction without a difference don't you think?

In both cases the court carved out specific exceptions for how the 14th Amendment DIDN'T apply for those groups. For women in the case of voting and the precedent was applied to other rights. And for blacks in the case of segregation, voting rights, and education, and other Jim Crow laws.

[Josh]

Times change. There was a time when the Supreme Court ruled that the 14 Amendment didn't apply to women (Minor v. Happersett) or black people (Plessy v. Ferguson) either. Now it does.

That's incorrect. No Court ever denied the 14th Amendment applied either to blacks or to women. At times there was a question of how it applied to them, but never whether it applied to them.

That's kind of a distinction without a difference don't you think?

In both cases the court carved out specific exceptions for how the 14th Amendment DIDN'T apply for those groups. For women in the case of voting and the precedent was applied to other rights. And for blacks in the case of segregation, voting rights, and education, and other Jim Crow laws.

Could you explain how the authors of the 14th amendment intended to make sure gay marriage is legal?

[Ken]

That's incorrect. No Court ever denied the 14th Amendment applied either to blacks or to women. At times there was a question of how it applied to them, but never whether it applied to them.

That's kind of a distinction without a difference don't you think?

In both cases the court carved out specific exceptions for how the 14th Amendment DIDN'T apply for those groups. For women in the case of voting and the precedent was applied to other rights. And for blacks in the case of segregation, voting rights, and education, and other Jim Crow laws.

Could you explain how the authors of the 14th amendment intended to make sure gay marriage is legal?

The authors of the 14th Amendment wrote a blanket guarantee of equal protection under the law that did not carve out specific groups for privilege or disadvantage:

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.

They did not specify exemptions if you are a woman, if you are Black or Hispanic, or if you are gay, if you are elderly, or if you are a religious minority. They wrote it to apply to everyone. The text of the amendment says "any person." And the Supreme Court has agreed.

Neither the 14th Amendment nor the courts have said that gay marriage must be legal. What they have actually said is that if you are going to establish laws that privilege marriage in terms of inheritance, taxes, medical access, etc. Then you must not discriminate against gay people. The state could just as easily get out of the business of regulating and privileging marriage and make it a purely private non-governmental issue and that would be fine too.

[Falco Underhill]

For example, it was used to prohibit compulsory public education, prohibit mandatory sterilization of disabled women, and to overrule state laws that prohibited interracial marriage.

P.S. if any of these issues were decided by the SCOTUS before Brown v Board of Education (1954) I am certainly not aware of it. Can you cite applicable SCOTUS cases referring to these issues with dates, please?

P.S. P.S. I'm aware that we have gotten far away from the topic of this thread. (My bad, I apologize.) So, if a moderator wishes to move these posts to a more applicable thread, please be my guest, thanks!

[Ken]

Now people begin to wonder... who made the court the ultimate arbiters with respect to the American ideals of freedom? (Answer: they did!) And if the U.S. Supreme Court gets to decide such controversial social issues with the changing of the times where will it all stop?

When the times change again, will it draw the line at polyamorous relationships? At pedophilia, or at bestiality? (Don't laugh! There are already people speaking out in defense of these very things. They may be marginal now but do you expect them to stay that way? I don't! )

In my mind, a very simple test about whether to extend rights is whether or not there is a victim. Or, put another way, does your right harm or infringe on others.

Pedophilia? Definitely victims

Polygamy? Potentially victims (divorces, inheritance, etc. become complex and problematic)

Gay marriage? No victims. Some Christians opposed to gay marriage claim it harms "traditional" marriage. But I fail to see how my traditional marriage to my wife is harmed if my gay neighbors wish to get married.

Inter-racial marriage? No victims

Birth control? No victims

Abortion? To the extent there is a victim depends on your definitions of when life begins, when an individual gets a soul and becomes a person. This is easily the most challenging issue.

Bestiality? I think this is pretty uncommon and we slaughter animals by the billions in this country. So I'm not particularly opinionated one way or the other on this one. I'm not an animal rights person generally speaking. I'm more interested in preserving habitat and wildlife. Bestiality is certainly outside of societal norms. But I don't think we have an epidemic of bestiality in this country to worry about.