The 10th amendment was circumvented by the 14th due process and equal protection clauses.10th AMND plain and simple
Gay is not a protected class with equal protection. Its a State's right.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The 10th amendment was circumvented by the 14th due process and equal protection clauses.10th AMND plain and simple
Please show me where the constitution says one has to be in a protected class to get due process and equal protection.The 10th amendment was circumvented by the 14th due process and equal protection clauses.10th AMND plain and simple
Gay is not a protected class with equal protection. Its a State's right.
Please show me where the constitution says one has to be in a protected class to get due process and equal protection.The 10th amendment was circumvented by the 14th due process and equal protection clauses.10th AMND plain and simple
Gay is not a protected class with equal protection. Its a State's right.
\Please show me where the constitution says one has to be in a protected class to get due process and equal protection.The 10th amendment was circumvented by the 14th due process and equal protection clauses.10th AMND plain and simple
Gay is not a protected class with equal protection. Its a State's right.
It doesn't specifically.
However absent a protected class status causation there is no Constitutionality about it,
Marriage falls under the purview of the State.
\Please show me where the constitution says one has to be in a protected class to get due process and equal protection.The 10th amendment was circumvented by the 14th due process and equal protection clauses.10th AMND plain and simple
Gay is not a protected class with equal protection. Its a State's right.
It doesn't specifically.
However absent a protected class status causation there is no Constitutionality about it,
Marriage falls under the purview of the State.
And said state laws must meet the 14th due process clause and the 14th equal protection clause. Checkmate.
\Please show me where the constitution says one has to be in a protected class to get due process and equal protection.The 10th amendment was circumvented by the 14th due process and equal protection clauses.
Gay is not a protected class with equal protection. Its a State's right.
It doesn't specifically.
However absent a protected class status causation there is no Constitutionality about it,
Marriage falls under the purview of the State.
And said state laws must meet the 14th due process clause and the 14th equal protection clause. Checkmate.
Not so much. It is why Windsor affirmed marriage as a State's purviewed "right" and didn't checkmate the entire argument.
Where States approve it. The Feds must honor it.
Where they haven't. It doesn't exist.
My state Constitution specifically prevents it.
Worldy, why do you supposed the SCOTUS granted the stay on gay marriage and polygamy in Utah when Utah's AG pled on the grounds that not to do so would harm their democratic process and rights....citing Windsor 2013 as he did so?
The 10th amendment was circumvented by the 14th due process and equal protection clauses.10th AMND plain and simple
Gay is not a protected class with equal protection. Its a State's right.
\Please show me where the constitution says one has to be in a protected class to get due process and equal protection.Gay is not a protected class with equal protection. Its a State's right.
It doesn't specifically.
However absent a protected class status causation there is no Constitutionality about it,
Marriage falls under the purview of the State.
And said state laws must meet the 14th due process clause and the 14th equal protection clause. Checkmate.
Not so much. It is why Windsor affirmed marriage as a State's purviewed "right" and didn't checkmate the entire argument.
Where States approve it. The Feds must honor it.
Where they haven't. It doesn't exist.
My state Constitution specifically prevents it.
Nah... the reason the SCOTUS did not checkmate the argument is they like to keep narrow the issue to the case at hand more often than not.
My state constitution also specifically prevents it... These state rejections based on sexual orientation are new, I doubt they will hold up. The negative logic that they can just switch orientation if they want to get married... ROFL that's not gonna work.. the logic that society is harmed... is BS that's not gonna work. I just don't see how this type of bigotry by popular demand is gonna hold up. Not in this era of civil rights. We'll see who fixes this first, the courts through a constitutionality test or the next civil rights bill that will likely add sexual orientation to the prohibition against discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin by federal and state governments as well as some public places.
\Please show me where the constitution says one has to be in a protected class to get due process and equal protection.The 10th amendment was circumvented by the 14th due process and equal protection clauses.
Gay is not a protected class with equal protection. Its a State's right.
It doesn't specifically.
However absent a protected class status causation there is no Constitutionality about it,
Marriage falls under the purview of the State.
And said state laws must meet the 14th due process clause and the 14th equal protection clause. Checkmate.
Not so much. It is why Windsor affirmed marriage as a State's purviewed "right" and didn't checkmate the entire argument.
Where States approve it. The Feds must honor it.
Where they haven't. It doesn't exist.
My state Constitution specifically prevents it.
\Please show me where the constitution says one has to be in a protected class to get due process and equal protection.
It doesn't specifically.
However absent a protected class status causation there is no Constitutionality about it,
Marriage falls under the purview of the State.
And said state laws must meet the 14th due process clause and the 14th equal protection clause. Checkmate.
Not so much. It is why Windsor affirmed marriage as a State's purviewed "right" and didn't checkmate the entire argument.
Where States approve it. The Feds must honor it.
Where they haven't. It doesn't exist.
My state Constitution specifically prevents it.
Nah... the reason the SCOTUS did not checkmate the argument is they like to keep narrow the issue to the case at hand more often than not.
My state constitution also specifically prevents it... These state rejections based on sexual orientation are new, I doubt they will hold up. The negative logic that they can just switch orientation if they want to get married... ROFL that's not gonna work.. the logic that society is harmed... is BS that's not gonna work. I just don't see how this type of bigotry by popular demand is gonna hold up. Not in this era of civil rights. We'll see who fixes this first, the courts through a constitutionality test or the next civil rights bill that will likely add sexual orientation to the prohibition against discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin by federal and state governments as well as some public places.
You can't just toss out the affirmation that Windsor was founded upon the longstanding notion that marriage and the regulation and determination of what constitutes it, falls as it has historically and in law, to the State.
Homosexuality is a choice unlike any other protected class.
Since when is homosexuality a protected class?Homosexuality is a choice unlike any other protected class.
Windsor didn't overturn a State law, Windsor overturned a Federal law.
As to whether States can discriminate against homosexuals in terms of Civil Marriage is a question that hasn't been answered yet.
Similar to the State of Alabama which had amended their Constitution to ban interracial couples from marrying. You are right though, the right to interracial Civil Marriage didn't exist under the law until the SCOTUS recognized it in Loving v. Virginia. Prior to that Alabama's Constitutional amendment was the law in Alabama, after the ruling - well - not so much.
>>>>
hey look it's the homophobic bigoted POS back to piss on peopleWindsor didn't overturn a State law, Windsor overturned a Federal law.
As to whether States can discriminate against homosexuals in terms of Civil Marriage is a question that hasn't been answered yet.
Similar to the State of Alabama which had amended their Constitution to ban interracial couples from marrying. You are right though, the right to interracial Civil Marriage didn't exist under the law until the SCOTUS recognized it in Loving v. Virginia. Prior to that Alabama's Constitutional amendment was the law in Alabama, after the ruling - well - not so much.
>>>>
Your pal Jake over at the 32 states thread says that SCOTUS isn't going to answer that question. Y'all aren't shy about lying if you think it will create an image of defeat. Whatever works right? And this is the group whose mores we're supposed to trade in longstanding values for?
Gay behaviors and polygamy [inseperable legal arguments re: "marriage equality"] are behaviors. Sticking your penis in an artificial vagina [lower digestive tract/anus] like you learned to do as a boy/adolescent does not = race. Might want to stop offending blacks, hispanics, asians etc. with that grotesque comparison.
Ah, someone HAS actually read the context, repetition and emphasis in Windsor 2013!Windsor relies on the power reserved to the States as having the purview of marriage, and seeing some of those States have allowed same-sex marriage - DOMA could not prevent enjoyment of spousal Federal benefits in States where legal.