Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Here is a little info on the judge.
omination by President George H. W. Bush to a seat on the federal district court vacated by Spencer M. Williams.[1] Walker was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on November 21, 1989, on unanimous consent and received commission on November 27, 1989.
Walker's original nomination to the bench by Ronald Reagan in 1987 stalled in the Senate Judiciary Committee because of controversy over his representation of the United States Olympic Committee in a lawsuit that prohibited the use of the title "Gay Olympics".[4] Two dozen House Democrats, led by Rep. Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco, opposed his nomination because of his alleged "insensitivity" to gays and the poor.
Wired magazine describes Walker as having libertarian leanings.[7]
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
equal protection is part of the 14th amendment.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
I'll see your Tenth Amendment and raise you one Ninth Amendment.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
I'll see your Tenth Amendment and raise you one Ninth Amendment.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
I'll see your Tenth Amendment and raise you one Ninth Amendment.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Fortunately for us, though, state law IS allowed to deny or disparage some of those other rights, if the voters and their elected representatives so choose. That is why the Ninth Amendment is not construed as protecting a right to commit bigamy.
The court ruled that Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute violated both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In its decision, the court wrote:The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
equal protection is part of the 14th amendment.
Yes, and if we were talking about something that's actually protected by law, that would matter. Since nowhere in the law is anyone given the legal right to "marry the person they love" or "marry whomever they want", or whatever so-called right you think homosexuals are being denied, the 14th Amendment does not apply.
The court ruled that Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute violated both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In its decision, the court wrote:equal protection is part of the 14th amendment.
Yes, and if we were talking about something that's actually protected by law, that would matter. Since nowhere in the law is anyone given the legal right to "marry the person they love" or "marry whomever they want", or whatever so-called right you think homosexuals are being denied, the 14th Amendment does not apply.
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."
Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I guess the courts can use the 14 amendment when deciding if we get to marry who we want. They used it in regards to race, now why can't they use it regards to sexual orientation?
"Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State". I think this sentence says it all.
Where in the 14th amendment does it address marriage?
Equal protection is part of the 14th amendment...in case you had not yet heard.
The law in no way denied anyone the right to get married.
Every man(straight or homosexual) had the right to marry a woman.
Every woman(straight or homosexual) had the right to marry a man.
In fact, the law did nothing to prevent homosexuals from getting "married" to each other, it just said that the state would not recognize it.
Where in the 14th amendment does it address marriage?
Equal protection is part of the 14th amendment...in case you had not yet heard.
The law in no way denied anyone the right to get married.
Every man(straight or homosexual) had the right to marry a woman.
Every woman(straight or homosexual) had the right to marry a man.
In fact, the law did nothing to prevent homosexuals from getting "married" to each other, it just said that the state would not recognize it.
The court ruled that Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute violated both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In its decision, the court wrote:Yes, and if we were talking about something that's actually protected by law, that would matter. Since nowhere in the law is anyone given the legal right to "marry the person they love" or "marry whomever they want", or whatever so-called right you think homosexuals are being denied, the 14th Amendment does not apply.
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."
Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I guess the courts can use the 14 amendment when deciding if we get to marry who we want. They used it in regards to race, now why can't they use it regards to sexual orientation?
"Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State". I think this sentence says it all.
Well, that'll teach you to think when you're so painfully ill-equipped for it. Among the things that that sentence DOESN'T say is WHERE the Constitution says ANYTHING about marriage, and when homosexuality became a race.
All the Constitution says is that laws must be applied to everyone in exactly the same way, and they are. Any other contortions you and your activist judges want to perform are just so much bullshit. And no, having the power to force your bullshit on others against their will doesn't make it any less bullshit.
/lame argument.
Funny, you can't point out how. Everything I stated is a fact, plain and simple.
/lame argument.
Funny, you can't point out how. Everything I stated is a fact, plain and simple.
Sure, I can point out how that it's a lame argument.
It's like if you were allergic to purple pops, and your sibling loved them, and mom bought them, and you said "mom, that's not fair," and she says: "sure, it's fair, you both have equal access to purple pops."
It makes no sense, it's a lame cop-out argument.
Funny, you can't point out how. Everything I stated is a fact, plain and simple.
Sure, I can point out how that it's a lame argument.
It's like if you were allergic to purple pops, and your sibling loved them, and mom bought them, and you said "mom, that's not fair," and she says: "sure, it's fair, you both have equal access to purple pops."
It makes no sense, it's a lame cop-out argument.
I want to use a handicapped parking place. Why do I have to be handicapped to use one ?
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
equal protection is part of the 14th amendment.
I'm guessing Lonestar's not too fond of the 14th amendment.
Sure, I can point out how that it's a lame argument.
It's like if you were allergic to purple pops, and your sibling loved them, and mom bought them, and you said "mom, that's not fair," and she says: "sure, it's fair, you both have equal access to purple pops."
It makes no sense, it's a lame cop-out argument.
I want to use a handicapped parking place. Why do I have to be handicapped to use one ?
Now there's something real and noble that you should fight for.
I want to use a handicapped parking place. Why do I have to be handicapped to use one ?
Now there's something real and noble that you should fight for.
Stretch you mind and see if you can spot the hidden message.
