Well which is it? Is Perry for ‘states’ rights’ (which never actually existed) or forcing the states to confirm to a national standard. Perry’s inconsistency is indicative of his ignorance.
Are you really that dense?
If states rights do not exist why was California able to impose more stringent emission standards on vehicles sold in that state than apply to other states? Wouldn't the federal air standards preempt any attempt by California to change the standards? If there is one thing even idiots should agree on it is that there are no walls between the states so that the air in California is different than the air in Arizona.
What Perry is doing is pointing out that, under the Constitution, it is perfectly reasonable for New York to have same sex marriage. If, on the other hand, there was a constitutional amendment that said states did not have that right, then it would wrong for New York to do so.
And a ‘marriage amendment’ would as much pollute the Constitution as a ‘balanced budget’ amendment.
How would either pollute the Constitution?
Not that I actually expect an answer, but I would love to see you attempt to justify that one.
18 states still had ‘anti-miscegenation’ statutes on the books as of 1967, not an insignificant number. Indeed, two states – Alabama and South Carolina – didn’t amend their state constitutions to repeal anti-miscegenation provisions until 2000 and 1998, respectively.
Of course one state with such a law would be one state too many.
Whinging again?
I think states that have laws that say you need to get 700 hours of training to file nails are way more over the top than states that tell you who and who you cannot marry. Do you see me whinging about them, or trying to argue that the Constitution prevents that? Nope, you just see me making sure I live in states that are more sensible.
It’s consequently incorrect to present Loving as a ‘moot decision,’ that all states were ‘on their way’ to repealing anti-miscegenation legislation, when that was clearly not the case – particularly with regard to Virginia, Alabama, and South Carolina.
Really?
Are you actually going to argue that, if SCOTUS had not ruled those laws were unconstitutional, there would still be states that had them? Is it remotely possible that, once those laws were invalid, those states moved on to other things which were actually worth their time until some whinges overpowered common sense and forced them to deal with said laws?
Your ‘principle’ is inconsistent with the Constitution and the rule of law. If a law is determined un-Constitutional by the courts, it is struck down, regardless what the majority wants. It’s the fundamental tenet protecting us from the tyranny of the majority.
As I have pointed out to you more than once, the rule of law does not protect anyone from anything, and it is actually more likely to nullify the Constitution and eliminate rights than it is to support them. Are you ever going to deal with the facts as they are, or will you continue to exist in a delusional world where the government cares more about you than it does its power?
And again, incorrect. .
Marriage law - like any other law - must be applied equally and the people given equal access to the laws per the 14th Amendment. Just as the majority does not decide who may have his rights and who many not, the majority also does not decide who may have access to a given law and who may not. See: West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943).
What does that mean?
Yet another wrong answer from the right.
Homosexuals are a protected class. See: Romer v Evans (1996).
You see it.
Kennedy said:
We must conclude that Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This Colorado cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws. Amendment 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause, and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Colorado is affirmed.
It prevented the impermissible targeting of a group to exempt them from rights. For the comprehension challenged, like yourself, that means that the state cannot single out a specific group of people and then deny them rights that exist for everyone already.
If I were you I would slink away in shame at such a blatant misrepresentation of the findings of a Supreme Court decision. Unfortunately,m you are not intelligent enough to understand just how egregiously you misstated the case even after it has been pointed out to you.
