Bill O’Reilly and Andrea Tantaros misconstrue 14th Amendment and “equal protection of the laws”.

[johnwk]

apples and oranges.

judges are there to enforce the law, not to make it.

You dodged the question. You expressed a desire that judges not have the power to uphold the 2nd amendment.

nope. the 2nd is clear on gun rights, the 14th is not clear on gay marriage.

How clear is the 2nd on auto weapons? Tanks? Ammo? Licensing?

"right to bear arms" is clear. the word "marriage" appears nowhere in the 14th

No...but saying that the government has to treat all citizens equally IS. And if the government treats one couple of law-abiding, tax-paying citizens by issuing them marriage licenses, they cannot deny that same treatment to other couples of law-abiding, tax-paying citizens based on gender.

And what provision in the Constitution talks about "couples" or prohibits a state to make distinctions based upon sex?


JWK

 

[bodecea]

You dodged the question. You expressed a desire that judges not have the power to uphold the 2nd amendment.

nope. the 2nd is clear on gun rights, the 14th is not clear on gay marriage.

How clear is the 2nd on auto weapons? Tanks? Ammo? Licensing?

"right to bear arms" is clear. the word "marriage" appears nowhere in the 14th

No...but saying that the government has to treat all citizens equally IS. And if the government treats one couple of law-abiding, tax-paying citizens by issuing them marriage licenses, they cannot deny that same treatment to other couples of law-abiding, tax-paying citizens based on gender.

And what provision in the Constitution talks about "couples" or prohibits a state to make distinctions based upon sex?


JWK

A combination of the 14th and any state that provides marriage licenses. Now....if a state did not offer marriage licenses AT ALL, this would not be an issue, you know. Treat every law-abiding, tax-paying couple equally by not giving license to anyone or giving them to all. It's really quite simple.................just like driver's licenses....you pass the test, you get the license. Because of the 14th, a state cannot withhold a driver's license (if you pass the tests) to someone because they are gay, female, black, Jewish, etc.

 

[johnwk]

apples and oranges.

judges are there to enforce the law, not to make it.

You dodged the question. You expressed a desire that judges not have the power to uphold the 2nd amendment.

nope. the 2nd is clear on gun rights, the 14th is not clear on gay marriage.

How clear is the 2nd on auto weapons? Tanks? Ammo? Licensing?

It becomes very clear when we take the time to discover the intentions for which the Amendment was adopted as expressed by our forefathers. The documented legislative intent of our Constitution, as expressed by its framers and those who ratified it give context to the plain languages of our Constitution.


JWK




The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS'N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

IF the language of the Constitution is so plain as you claim, why even have a Judicial Branch?

Perhaps you can explain the "plainness" of the 2nd Amendment in relation to the ownership of automatic weapons, tanks, ammo, and the licensing thereof.

What I pointed out is, the language of the Constitution becomes clear when we discover its meaning as expressed by those who framed and ratified the Constitution. And this is what a judges' job is when offering opinions concerning what our Constitution means. Their job is to research the legislative intent of the provision in question by referring to the debates when the provision was being framed and ratified, and their written opinion must be in harmony with the legislative intent which was expressed. Judges are not free to impose their views of justice, fairness or reasonableness as the rule of law. To do so is to circumvent the very purpose of having a written Constitution.


JWK


"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

 

[johnwk]

nope. the 2nd is clear on gun rights, the 14th is not clear on gay marriage.

How clear is the 2nd on auto weapons? Tanks? Ammo? Licensing?

"right to bear arms" is clear. the word "marriage" appears nowhere in the 14th

No...but saying that the government has to treat all citizens equally IS. And if the government treats one couple of law-abiding, tax-paying citizens by issuing them marriage licenses, they cannot deny that same treatment to other couples of law-abiding, tax-paying citizens based on gender.

And what provision in the Constitution talks about "couples" or prohibits a state to make distinctions based upon sex?


JWK

A combination of the 14th and any state that provides marriage licenses. Now....if a state did not offer marriage licenses AT ALL, this would not be an issue, you know. Treat every law-abiding, tax-paying couple equally by not giving license to anyone or giving them to all. It's really quite simple.................just like driver's licenses....you pass the test, you get the license. Because of the 14th, a state cannot withhold a driver's license (if you pass the tests) to someone because they are gay, female, black, Jewish, etc.

The question was:

And what provision in the Constitution talks about "couples" or prohibits a state to make distinctions based upon sex?

 

[bodecea]

You dodged the question. You expressed a desire that judges not have the power to uphold the 2nd amendment.

nope. the 2nd is clear on gun rights, the 14th is not clear on gay marriage.

How clear is the 2nd on auto weapons? Tanks? Ammo? Licensing?

It becomes very clear when we take the time to discover the intentions for which the Amendment was adopted as expressed by our forefathers. The documented legislative intent of our Constitution, as expressed by its framers and those who ratified it give context to the plain languages of our Constitution.


JWK




The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS'N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

IF the language of the Constitution is so plain as you claim, why even have a Judicial Branch?

Perhaps you can explain the "plainness" of the 2nd Amendment in relation to the ownership of automatic weapons, tanks, ammo, and the licensing thereof.

What I pointed out is, the language of the Constitution becomes clear when we discover its meaning as expressed by those who framed and ratified the Constitution. And this is what a judges' job is when offering opinions concerning what our Constitution means. Their job is to research the legislative intent of the provision in question by referring to the debates when the provision was being framed and ratified, and their written opinion must be in harmony with the legislative intent which was expressed. Judges are not free to impose their views of justice, fairness or reasonableness as the rule of law. To do so is to circumvent the very purpose of having a written Constitution.


JWK


"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

Yes...you very clearly stated what they do. And continue to do.

 

[bodecea]

How clear is the 2nd on auto weapons? Tanks? Ammo? Licensing?

"right to bear arms" is clear. the word "marriage" appears nowhere in the 14th

No...but saying that the government has to treat all citizens equally IS. And if the government treats one couple of law-abiding, tax-paying citizens by issuing them marriage licenses, they cannot deny that same treatment to other couples of law-abiding, tax-paying citizens based on gender.

And what provision in the Constitution talks about "couples" or prohibits a state to make distinctions based upon sex?


JWK

A combination of the 14th and any state that provides marriage licenses. Now....if a state did not offer marriage licenses AT ALL, this would not be an issue, you know. Treat every law-abiding, tax-paying couple equally by not giving license to anyone or giving them to all. It's really quite simple.................just like driver's licenses....you pass the test, you get the license. Because of the 14th, a state cannot withhold a driver's license (if you pass the tests) to someone because they are gay, female, black, Jewish, etc.

The question was:

And what provision in the Constitution talks about "couples" or prohibits a state to make distinctions based upon sex?

Once again...the 14th says this:

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.

Do you see that bolded part? Once a state makes a law such as a marriage law, it cannot deny a person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of whatever that law is. It's really quite simple.

 

[johnwk]

"right to bear arms" is clear. the word "marriage" appears nowhere in the 14th

No...but saying that the government has to treat all citizens equally IS. And if the government treats one couple of law-abiding, tax-paying citizens by issuing them marriage licenses, they cannot deny that same treatment to other couples of law-abiding, tax-paying citizens based on gender.

And what provision in the Constitution talks about "couples" or prohibits a state to make distinctions based upon sex?


JWK

A combination of the 14th and any state that provides marriage licenses. Now....if a state did not offer marriage licenses AT ALL, this would not be an issue, you know. Treat every law-abiding, tax-paying couple equally by not giving license to anyone or giving them to all. It's really quite simple.................just like driver's licenses....you pass the test, you get the license. Because of the 14th, a state cannot withhold a driver's license (if you pass the tests) to someone because they are gay, female, black, Jewish, etc.

The question was:

And what provision in the Constitution talks about "couples" or prohibits a state to make distinctions based upon sex?

Once again...the 14th says this:

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.

Do you see that bolded part? Once a state makes a law such as a marriage law, it cannot deny a person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of whatever that law is. It's really quite simple.

Yup! I do see the bolded part. And what it states in context is, whatever laws are adopted by a state, no "person" [singular] may be denied the equal protection of those laws.

Now, getting back to my question: what provision in the Constitution talks about "couples" or prohibits a state to make distinctions based upon sex?


JWK




The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS'N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934

 

[bodecea]

No...but saying that the government has to treat all citizens equally IS. And if the government treats one couple of law-abiding, tax-paying citizens by issuing them marriage licenses, they cannot deny that same treatment to other couples of law-abiding, tax-paying citizens based on gender.

And what provision in the Constitution talks about "couples" or prohibits a state to make distinctions based upon sex?


JWK

A combination of the 14th and any state that provides marriage licenses. Now....if a state did not offer marriage licenses AT ALL, this would not be an issue, you know. Treat every law-abiding, tax-paying couple equally by not giving license to anyone or giving them to all. It's really quite simple.................just like driver's licenses....you pass the test, you get the license. Because of the 14th, a state cannot withhold a driver's license (if you pass the tests) to someone because they are gay, female, black, Jewish, etc.

The question was:

And what provision in the Constitution talks about "couples" or prohibits a state to make distinctions based upon sex?

Once again...the 14th says this:

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.

Do you see that bolded part? Once a state makes a law such as a marriage law, it cannot deny a person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of whatever that law is. It's really quite simple.

Yup! I do see the bolded part. And what it states in context is, whatever laws are adopted by a state, no "person" [singular] may be denied the equal protection of those laws.

Now, getting back to my question: what provision in the Constitution talks about "couples" or prohibits a state to make distinctions based upon sex?


JWK




The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS'N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934

Do you not understand that the 14th explains that any law must be enforced equally? Any law? Not just something in the Constitution itself?

 

[johnwk]

And what provision in the Constitution talks about "couples" or prohibits a state to make distinctions based upon sex?


JWK

A combination of the 14th and any state that provides marriage licenses. Now....if a state did not offer marriage licenses AT ALL, this would not be an issue, you know. Treat every law-abiding, tax-paying couple equally by not giving license to anyone or giving them to all. It's really quite simple.................just like driver's licenses....you pass the test, you get the license. Because of the 14th, a state cannot withhold a driver's license (if you pass the tests) to someone because they are gay, female, black, Jewish, etc.

The question was:

And what provision in the Constitution talks about "couples" or prohibits a state to make distinctions based upon sex?

Once again...the 14th says this:

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.

Do you see that bolded part? Once a state makes a law such as a marriage law, it cannot deny a person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of whatever that law is. It's really quite simple.

Yup! I do see the bolded part. And what it states in context is, whatever laws are adopted by a state, no "person" [singular] may be denied the equal protection of those laws.

Now, getting back to my question: what provision in the Constitution talks about "couples" or prohibits a state to make distinctions based upon sex?


JWK




The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS'N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934

Do you not understand that the 14th explains that any law must be enforced equally? Any law? Not just something in the Constitution itself?

What is understand is, you won't answer the following question: what provision in the Constitution talks about "couples" or prohibits a state to make distinctions based upon sex?


JWK

 

[Redfish]

apples and oranges.

judges are there to enforce the law, not to make it.

Seriously? You just said that judges "enforce" the law? Isn't that the Executive Branch's job?

no, the executive brance implements the law. the judicial enforces it.

OMIGOD!!!! You're still gonna go with "the judicial enforces it".

Is DOJ judicial or executive?

The Dept of Justice is Executive.....that is NOT the Judicial branch...that is the lawyers, the prosecutors to be exact.

All courts are in the Judicial Branch..................all of them.

You really need to do some research, you are making a fool of yourself.

 

[Redfish]

apples and oranges.

judges are there to enforce the law, not to make it.

You dodged the question. You expressed a desire that judges not have the power to uphold the 2nd amendment.

nope. the 2nd is clear on gun rights, the 14th is not clear on gay marriage.

How clear is the 2nd on auto weapons? Tanks? Ammo? Licensing?

It becomes very clear when we take the time to discover the intentions for which the Amendment was adopted as expressed by our forefathers. The documented legislative intent of our Constitution, as expressed by its framers and those who ratified it give context to the plain languages of our Constitution.


JWK




The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS'N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

IF the language of the Constitution is so plain as you claim, why even have a Judicial Branch?

Perhaps you can explain the "plainness" of the 2nd Amendment in relation to the ownership of automatic weapons, tanks, ammo, and the licensing thereof.

the "right to bear (not bare) arms" does not put any limits on the kinds of arms.

 

[Redfish]

And what provision in the Constitution talks about "couples" or prohibits a state to make distinctions based upon sex?


JWK

A combination of the 14th and any state that provides marriage licenses. Now....if a state did not offer marriage licenses AT ALL, this would not be an issue, you know. Treat every law-abiding, tax-paying couple equally by not giving license to anyone or giving them to all. It's really quite simple.................just like driver's licenses....you pass the test, you get the license. Because of the 14th, a state cannot withhold a driver's license (if you pass the tests) to someone because they are gay, female, black, Jewish, etc.

The question was:

And what provision in the Constitution talks about "couples" or prohibits a state to make distinctions based upon sex?

Once again...the 14th says this:

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.

Do you see that bolded part? Once a state makes a law such as a marriage law, it cannot deny a person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of whatever that law is. It's really quite simple.

Yup! I do see the bolded part. And what it states in context is, whatever laws are adopted by a state, no "person" [singular] may be denied the equal protection of those laws.

Now, getting back to my question: what provision in the Constitution talks about "couples" or prohibits a state to make distinctions based upon sex?


JWK




The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS'N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934

Do you not understand that the 14th explains that any law must be enforced equally? Any law? Not just something in the Constitution itself?

yes, any federal law and any state law that is not in conflict with federal law. State marriage laws do not conflict with federal marriage laws, because there are no federal marriage laws.

 

[protectionist]

JOHNWK SAID:

“But if a state makes a license law which makes a distinction based upon race, color or former condition of slavery, the expressed legislative intent of the 14th Amendment was to prohibit such a distinction. There is nothing in the 14th Amendment’s language or debates of the 39th Congress which gave birth to the 14th Amendment that it was intended to forbid a State to make distinctions in law based upon sex.”

No one ever said it did with regard to the right of same-sex couples to marry pursuant the the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment:

“[T]he Court reaffirmed the substantive force of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause. [O]ur laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education. In explaining the respect the Constitution demands for the autonomy of the person in making these choices, we stated as follows:

These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State.

Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.” (Lawrence v. Texas (2003)).

Consequently the issue before the Supreme Court has nothing to do with gender or sexual orientation, it has to do with a class of persons, in this case homosexuals, denied their right to due process and equal protection of the law in violation of the 14th Amendment, based solely on the states' animus toward personal choices made by gay Americans, choices entitled to Constitutional protections.

Measures seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law are therefore 'a classification of persons undertaken for its own sake, something the Equal Protection Clause does not permit. "[C]lass legislation . . . [is] obnoxious to the prohibitions of the Fourteenth Amendment[.]”' (Romer v. Evans (1996)).

The 14th Amendment prohibits discrimination against classes of persons, as originally intended by the Amendment's Framers.

Homosexuals are not denied equal protection of the law. This is because they simply were never "equal" to begin with, and so there isn't any expectation of equality for them. They are an UNequal group, for whom unequal protection of the law is perfectly applicable. It is a correct fit.

 

[Skylar]

You dodged the question. You expressed a desire that judges not have the power to uphold the 2nd amendment.

nope. the 2nd is clear on gun rights, the 14th is not clear on gay marriage.

How clear is the 2nd on auto weapons? Tanks? Ammo? Licensing?

It becomes very clear when we take the time to discover the intentions for which the Amendment was adopted as expressed by our forefathers. The documented legislative intent of our Constitution, as expressed by its framers and those who ratified it give context to the plain languages of our Constitution.


JWK




The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS'N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

IF the language of the Constitution is so plain as you claim, why even have a Judicial Branch?

Perhaps you can explain the "plainness" of the 2nd Amendment in relation to the ownership of automatic weapons, tanks, ammo, and the licensing thereof.

the "right to bear (not bare) arms" does not put any limits on the kinds of arms.

So you insist that the right to bear arms would include....private ownership of nuclear weapons?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

REDFISH SAID:

'the "right to bear (not bare) arms" does not put any limits on the kinds of arms.'

Wrong.

'Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose[...] Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.'

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

JOHNWK SAID:

“But if a state makes a license law which makes a distinction based upon race, color or former condition of slavery, the expressed legislative intent of the 14th Amendment was to prohibit such a distinction. There is nothing in the 14th Amendment’s language or debates of the 39th Congress which gave birth to the 14th Amendment that it was intended to forbid a State to make distinctions in law based upon sex.”

No one ever said it did with regard to the right of same-sex couples to marry pursuant the the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment:

“[T]he Court reaffirmed the substantive force of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause. [O]ur laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education. In explaining the respect the Constitution demands for the autonomy of the person in making these choices, we stated as follows:

These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State.

Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.” (Lawrence v. Texas (2003)).

Consequently the issue before the Supreme Court has nothing to do with gender or sexual orientation, it has to do with a class of persons, in this case homosexuals, denied their right to due process and equal protection of the law in violation of the 14th Amendment, based solely on the states' animus toward personal choices made by gay Americans, choices entitled to Constitutional protections.

Measures seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law are therefore 'a classification of persons undertaken for its own sake, something the Equal Protection Clause does not permit. "[C]lass legislation . . . [is] obnoxious to the prohibitions of the Fourteenth Amendment[.]”' (Romer v. Evans (1996)).

The 14th Amendment prohibits discrimination against classes of persons, as originally intended by the Amendment's Framers.

Homosexuals are not denied equal protection of the law. This is because they simply were never "equal" to begin with, and so there isn't any expectation of equality for them. They are an UNequal group, for whom unequal protection of the law is perfectly applicable. It is a correct fit.

The case law cited in post #10 proves this to be wrong.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

A combination of the 14th and any state that provides marriage licenses. Now....if a state did not offer marriage licenses AT ALL, this would not be an issue, you know. Treat every law-abiding, tax-paying couple equally by not giving license to anyone or giving them to all. It's really quite simple.................just like driver's licenses....you pass the test, you get the license. Because of the 14th, a state cannot withhold a driver's license (if you pass the tests) to someone because they are gay, female, black, Jewish, etc.

The question was:

And what provision in the Constitution talks about "couples" or prohibits a state to make distinctions based upon sex?

Once again...the 14th says this:

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.

Do you see that bolded part? Once a state makes a law such as a marriage law, it cannot deny a person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of whatever that law is. It's really quite simple.

Yup! I do see the bolded part. And what it states in context is, whatever laws are adopted by a state, no "person" [singular] may be denied the equal protection of those laws.

Now, getting back to my question: what provision in the Constitution talks about "couples" or prohibits a state to make distinctions based upon sex?


JWK




The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS'N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934

Do you not understand that the 14th explains that any law must be enforced equally? Any law? Not just something in the Constitution itself?

yes, any federal law and any state law that is not in conflict with federal law. State marriage laws do not conflict with federal marriage laws, because there are no federal marriage laws.

No one ever said there was.

The states are subject to the Constitution, its case law, and the rulings of Federal courts, in this case the 14th Amendment's requirement that American citizens residing in the states be afforded due process and equal protection of the law, this includes same-sex couples being allowed access to state marriage law.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What if there were no judges to keep states from banning firearms? Are you still willing to abolish the courts and their power to interpret the law?

apples and oranges.

judges are there to enforce the law, not to make it.

You dodged the question. You expressed a desire that judges not have the power to uphold the 2nd amendment.

nope. the 2nd is clear on gun rights, the 14th is not clear on gay marriage.

Lol, but if the judiciary didn't have the power of judicial review they couldn't make such a determination.

Who would strike down a state gun ban if the judges didn't have the power?

chicago has a gun ban, so does DC.

Wrong.

Chicago's ban was invalidated in 2010, the District of Columbia's ban in 2008.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What if there were no judges to keep states from banning firearms? Are you still willing to abolish the courts and their power to interpret the law?

apples and oranges.

judges are there to enforce the law, not to make it.

You dodged the question. You expressed a desire that judges not have the power to uphold the 2nd amendment.

nope. the 2nd is clear on gun rights, the 14th is not clear on gay marriage.

How clear is the 2nd on auto weapons? Tanks? Ammo? Licensing?

"right to bear arms" is clear. the word "marriage" appears nowhere in the 14th

Incorrect.

Nowhere in the Second Amendment will you find the words 'individual' or 'self-defense,' but the Second Amendment does in fact protect an individual right to possess a handgun pursuant to the right of lawful self-defense, just as the Constitution protects the right to marry.

“But that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

 

[protectionist]

JOHNWK SAID:

“But if a state makes a license law which makes a distinction based upon race, color or former condition of slavery, the expressed legislative intent of the 14th Amendment was to prohibit such a distinction. There is nothing in the 14th Amendment’s language or debates of the 39th Congress which gave birth to the 14th Amendment that it was intended to forbid a State to make distinctions in law based upon sex.”

No one ever said it did with regard to the right of same-sex couples to marry pursuant the the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment:

“[T]he Court reaffirmed the substantive force of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause. [O]ur laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education. In explaining the respect the Constitution demands for the autonomy of the person in making these choices, we stated as follows:

These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State.

Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.” (Lawrence v. Texas (2003)).

Consequently the issue before the Supreme Court has nothing to do with gender or sexual orientation, it has to do with a class of persons, in this case homosexuals, denied their right to due process and equal protection of the law in violation of the 14th Amendment, based solely on the states' animus toward personal choices made by gay Americans, choices entitled to Constitutional protections.

Measures seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law are therefore 'a classification of persons undertaken for its own sake, something the Equal Protection Clause does not permit. "[C]lass legislation . . . [is] obnoxious to the prohibitions of the Fourteenth Amendment[.]”' (Romer v. Evans (1996)).

The 14th Amendment prohibits discrimination against classes of persons, as originally intended by the Amendment's Framers.

Homosexuals are not denied equal protection of the law. This is because they simply were never "equal" to begin with, and so there isn't any expectation of equality for them. They are an UNequal group, for whom unequal protection of the law is perfectly applicable. It is a correct fit.

The case law cited in post #10 proves this to be wrong.

I don't see that to be correct, and you're not specifying how you think it is. Also, in Post # 10, you stated " At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence". This is preposterous. So everyone is now going to walk around justifying every conceivable, moronic thing imaginable, just because they see it as normal ? Good grief, man.

Sure, anybody can think whatever they wish to THINK. But if the minute they translate some looney (and criminal) idea into action, which could harm others, that is where their liberty stops, and the liberty of others to be protected from them, begins.

As I said, Homos are not equal. They are different, and therefore should not be expected to be protected by an equal treatment of the laws.