How Hively v Ivy Tech (2016), Etc. Impacts Gay Marriage (Obergefell 2015)

[Silhouette]

From a thread about the latest LGBTQ...whatever...court decision: a setback, for the first time ever as far as I know. Court Rules--LEGAL To Fire Homo's! Except maybe Hobby Lobby. Skylar, mdk and the usual crew were busy on damage control when saintmichaeldefendthem noticed it:

I didn't abandon anything, I just don't beat my head against a wall over something that will likely never be walked back. I also try to stick to the topic which you have steered into the only topic on USMB you ever discuss. This thread is about firing homos, not homo nuptials.

Well...actually...Skylar is correct discussing "gay marriage" here. And the reason is that he knows Obergefell is challengeable on multiple levels. That it isn't based on any "rights" granted anywhere that apply "sexual orientation" to "sex" in the 14th Amendment, is but one blow to its credibility. This latest decision by the federal appeals courts says that sex IS NOT legally equivalent to sexual orientation (a behavior). That perhaps is the worst blow of all so far since this is the false premise the cult of LGBT has been leaning on so heavily in all their advances.

Others are that children are implied sharers to the marriage contract, yet they were not invited to the revision; and it was revised to strip them of either a mother or father for life.

Another vulnerability to Obergefell is that two of the Justices brazenly advertised their Opinions months in advance of the actual hearing, to a Public they are mandated to not demonstrate bias in front of.

Another is that marriage cannot be denied polygamists, incest or any other sexual orientation, once sexual orientation of any description can dictate to the majority "how it's going to be" in the various states. The fact that marriage is still denied to polygamists and any other orientation defies the spirit of the 14th Amendment upon which the Court relied.

Another vulnerability is that the Court made up that marriage is a right; where it is mentioned nowhere as such in the Constitution. It is, as Windsor said 56 times, a privilege defined by only the power of the separate states. Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal?

Another vulnerability is that even in Windsor (2013), the Court itself contradicted Obergefell 56 times. So, Obergefell in effect overturned Windsor. Because the 56 reiterations in Windsor said that marriage is up to the states to define. Obergefell overturned Windsor because Windsor's entire win was based on the fact that New York, "after careful deliberation" within its power and jurisdiction on the question, made gay marriage legal. Windsor said, ironically, that DOMA could be overturned...BECAUSE THE FED HAD NO BUSINESS REGULATING MARRIAGE! How's that for legal matter and anti-matter? I guess if it comes to gay marriage, the fed can define marriage, but not for polygamy or incest...both equally viable sexual orientations. But when it comes to awarding a lesbian money, then the fed cannot define marriage for a state. Or more precisely: the US Supreme Court can do as it pleases. But when the Congress wants to regulate marriage, particularly a conservative Congress, then the Court steps in to say "you have no power here!".. That's reserved only for THEM.

The Supreme Court effectively stepped in and on the same question walked both sides of the fence, while simultaneously castrating Congress and naming Itself "the vetoers of Congressional acts, on it's Supreme Whims".

So, Skylar is correct worrying about "gay marriage" because the federal decision from the OP just shot perhaps the final death-arrow in Obergefell. Skylar's only hope at this point is that two new corrupt Justices, blatantly political towards the cult of LGBT, get confirmed. Because if conservative ones do, Obergefell is toast.

******
Here's July 2016's Decision from the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals usat-2016-07-29-sexual-orientation-ruling.pdf Hively v Ivy Tech (2016).

ROVNER, Circuit Judge. Once again this court is asked to consider whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees from or offers redress for discrimination based on sexual orientation. This time, however, we do so in the shadow of a criticism from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) that this court and others have continued to reflexively declare that sexual orientation is not cognizable under Title VII without due analysis or consideration of intervening case law. The EEOC's criticism has created a groundswell of questions about the rationale for denying sexual orientation claims while allowing nearly indistinguishable gender non-conformity claims, which courts have long recognized as a form of sex-based discrimination under Title VII. After a careful analysis of our precedent, however, this court must conclude that Kimberly Hively has failed to state a claim under Title VII for sex discrimination which is beyond the scope of the statutes. Consequently, we affirm the decision of the district court.

What the court said was, "just because trannies are getting advances from Title VII, doesn't mean what one does with one's gender is covered. Ostensibly (and incorrectly because a male can never be a female or vice versa; a thing upon challenge the MDs will have to admit in sworn testimony), the court says "static status is one thing, behavior is another." The former being covered under the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the latter, not.

 

[Silhouette]

In case you forgot, here's the United States vs Windsor Opinion, where the Court found the fed has no business telling states what marriage is and isn't legal within their boundaries. United States v. Windsor

 

[Silhouette]

Here's a clincher quote the Court used in Windsor 2013 to determine that the Fed has no business telling states what marriage is or isn't. Polygamists would definitely agree. Their orientation can't get married. Only the "special ones" can..

Page 16: "..persons that the laws of New York, and of 11 other States, have sought to protect.."..."In order to assess the validity of that intervention it is necessary to discuss the extent of the state power and authority over marriage as a matter of history and tradition."...""regulation of domestic relations" is "an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States.

On that legal logic, the Court acted to strike down Congress' actions telling them "the Fed (just your branch) can't make determinations for the states on what marriage is or isn't"...

Ironic when you read Obergefell just 2 years later...

 

[mdk]

Thank you for condensing several years worth of your fantasies into one thread. I am a little disappointed you left out The Prince's Trust and Ferber in your lame ramblings.

Every single one of your aforementioned points has been reduced to smoldering ruins time and again, but yet you insist on repeating them as if it somehow makes them true. Hint: it doesn't. Get a life, Sil.

 

[Skylar]

From a thread about the latest LGBTQ...whatever...court decision: a setback, for the first time ever as far as I know. Court Rules--LEGAL To Fire Homo's! Except maybe Hobby Lobby. Skylar, mdk and the usual crew were busy on damage control when saintmichaeldefendthem noticed it:

I didn't abandon anything, I just don't beat my head against a wall over something that will likely never be walked back. I also try to stick to the topic which you have steered into the only topic on USMB you ever discuss. This thread is about firing homos, not homo nuptials.

Well...actually...Skylar is correct discussing "gay marriage" here. And the reason is that he knows Obergefell is challengeable on multiple levels. That it isn't based on any "rights" granted anywhere that apply "sexual orientation" to "sex" in the 14th Amendment, is but one blow to its credibility. This latest decision by the federal appeals courts says that sex IS NOT legally equivalent to sexual orientation (a behavior). That perhaps is the worst blow of all so far since this is the false premise the cult of LGBT has been leaning on so heavily in all their advances.

Others are that children are implied sharers to the marriage contract, yet they were not invited to the revision; and it was revised to strip them of either a mother or father for life.

Another vulnerability to Obergefell is that two of the Justices brazenly advertised their Opinions months in advance of the actual hearing, to a Public they are mandated to not demonstrate bias in front of.

Another is that marriage cannot be denied polygamists, incest or any other sexual orientation, once sexual orientation of any description can dictate to the majority "how it's going to be" in the various states. The fact that marriage is still denied to polygamists and any other orientation defies the spirit of the 14th Amendment upon which the Court relied.

Another vulnerability is that the Court made up that marriage is a right; where it is mentioned nowhere as such in the Constitution. It is, as Windsor said 56 times, a privilege defined by only the power of the separate states. Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal?

Another vulnerability is that even in Windsor (2013), the Court itself contradicted Obergefell 56 times. So, Obergefell in effect overturned Windsor. Because the 56 reiterations in Windsor said that marriage is up to the states to define. Obergefell overturned Windsor because Windsor's entire win was based on the fact that New York, "after careful deliberation" within its power and jurisdiction on the question, made gay marriage legal. Windsor said, ironically, that DOMA could be overturned...BECAUSE THE FED HAD NO BUSINESS REGULATING MARRIAGE! How's that for legal matter and anti-matter? I guess if it comes to gay marriage, the fed can define marriage, but not for polygamy or incest...both equally viable sexual orientations. But when it comes to awarding a lesbian money, then the fed cannot define marriage for a state. Or more precisely: the US Supreme Court can do as it pleases. But when the Congress wants to regulate marriage, particularly a conservative Congress, then the Court steps in to say "you have no power here!".. That's reserved only for THEM.

The Supreme Court effectively stepped in and on the same question walked both sides of the fence, while simultaneously castrating Congress and naming Itself "the vetoers of Congressional acts, on it's Supreme Whims".

So, Skylar is correct worrying about "gay marriage" because the federal decision from the OP just shot perhaps the final death-arrow in Obergefell. Skylar's only hope at this point is that two new corrupt Justices, blatantly political towards the cult of LGBT, get confirmed. Because if conservative ones do, Obergefell is toast.

******
Here's July 2016's Decision from the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals usat-2016-07-29-sexual-orientation-ruling.pdf Hively v Ivy Tech (2016).

ROVNER, Circuit Judge. Once again this court is asked to consider whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees from or offers redress for discrimination based on sexual orientation. This time, however, we do so in the shadow of a criticism from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) that this court and others have continued to reflexively declare that sexual orientation is not cognizable under Title VII without due analysis or consideration of intervening case law. The EEOC's criticism has created a groundswell of questions about the rationale for denying sexual orientation claims while allowing nearly indistinguishable gender non-conformity claims, which courts have long recognized as a form of sex-based discrimination under Title VII. After a careful analysis of our precedent, however, this court must conclude that Kimberly Hively has failed to state a claim under Title VII for sex discrimination which is beyond the scope of the statutes. Consequently, we affirm the decision of the district court.

What the court said was, "just because trannies are getting advances from Title VII, doesn't mean what one does with one's gender is covered. Ostensibly (and incorrectly because a male can never be a female or vice versa; a thing upon challenge the MDs will have to admit in sworn testimony), the court says "static status is one thing, behavior is another." The former being covered under the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the latter, not.

Yeah, none of that gibberish works. Off the top of my head;

First, you have profoundly misunderstood the Obrergefell ruling yet again. It isn't based on the idea that sex and sexual orientation are the same thing. Obergefell doesn't even make the argument. The Obergefell ruling isn't based on the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Making it gloriously irrelevant to the 7th Court ruling which addresses both.

Second, you couldn't' even get the relationships right. Obergefell was a ruling about the State in relation to the individual. Hively v. Ivy Tech is about the relationship between private individuals: an employer v. employee. Making the Hively ruling irrelevant to Obegefell again.

Third, the 7th appellant court is subject to the Supreme Court. Not the other way around. Killing your entire argument yet again.

There's simply nothing you got right or even close to right. Hively is your latest pseudo-legal fixation....like how Obergefell was about to be overturned by Caperton v. Massey....

It wasn't.

Or how Kagan and Ginsberg were about to be impeached when the Republicans took the Senate and Obergefell overturned.

And they weren't.

And how Obergefell was about to be overturned because it was a mistrial since 'children' weren't represented in Obergefell hearing.

It wasn't and it didn't.

Or how the Prince's Trust study was about to ovreturn Obergefell....

It didn't.

Or how the 'infancy doctrine' was about to overturn Obergefell....

And of course didn't....

Or how contract law was about to overturn Obergefell....

And didn't.

Or how New York v. Ferber as about to overturn Obergefell...

And didn't...

Notice the pattern yet? You're always, always wrong, Sil. Every time you predict Obergefell's fall, you're wrong. Every time you make up another steaming pile of pseudo-legal horseshit.....nothing happens.

Your record of failure in predicting legal outcomes....is perfect.

 

[Skylar]

Here's a clincher quote the Court used in Windsor 2013 to determine that the Fed has no business telling states what marriage is or isn't. Polygamists would definitely agree. Their orientation can't get married. Only the "special ones" can..

Page 16: "..persons that the laws of New York, and of 11 other States, have sought to protect.."..."In order to assess the validity of that intervention it is necessary to discuss the extent of the state power and authority over marriage as a matter of history and tradition."...""regulation of domestic relations" is "an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States.

On that legal logic, the Court acted to strike down Congress' actions telling them "the Fed (just your branch) can't make determinations for the states on what marriage is or isn't"...

Ironic when you read Obergefell just 2 years later...

Nope. This is the clincher in Windsor:

Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see , e.g., Loving v. Virginia , 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,” Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393, 404.

You always omit the 'subject to certain constitutional guarantees' part of the Windsor ruling. As if by ignoring it, it magically vanishes. We told you it would be significant in the Obergefell ruling, and you insisted you knew better.

In fact, the Windsor ruling so obviously telegraphed what it meant that justice Scalia said this in his dissent:

In my opinion, however, the view that this Court will take of state prohibition of same-sex marriage is indicated beyond mistaking by today’s opinion....

....How easy it is, indeed how inevitable, to reach the same conclusion with regard to state laws denying same-sex couples marital status.

Yet despite Justice Scalia telling you how it was going to be, using the terms 'beyond mistaking' and 'inevitable'.....and still you insisted you knew better.

And then the Obergefell ruling came down......and affirmed everything we told you was going to happen and everything Scalia told you was going to happen.

And still, you ignore the ruling, Scalia, us, everyone. Insisting that you know better.

How's that working out for you?

 

[Silhouette]

Thank you for condensing several years worth of your fantasies into one thread.

Was it "fantasy" that the 7th circuit ruled against Hively's assertions that the 1964 Civil Rights Act applies also to sexual orientation? Nope. That actually happened..

So, wherever a new court finds the words "sex" and "sexual orientation", they must now forever forward not consider them the same legal entity....including those cases challenging old rulings where the mistake was made substituting one for the other interchangeably...

 

[mdk]

Thank you for condensing several years worth of your fantasies into one thread.

Was it "fantasy" that the 7th circuit ruled against Hively's assertions that the 1964 Civil Rights Act applies also to sexual orientation? Nope. That actually happened..

So, wherever a new court finds the words "sex" and "sexual orientation", they must now forever forward not consider them the same legal entity....including those cases challenging old rulings where the mistake was made substituting one for the other interchangeably...

No shit it happened, dumb ass. I have stated on several occasions that I agree with the ruling as The Civil Rights Act doesn't mention sexual orientation. You pretending this finding has any bearing on Obergefell is where your fantasy takes hold. Do you ever tire of making a fool of yourself? I certainly don't. In fact, I love it. lol

 

[Skylar]

Thank you for condensing several years worth of your fantasies into one thread.

Was it "fantasy" that the 7th circuit ruled against Hively's assertions that the 1964 Civil Rights Act applies also to sexual orientation? Nope. That actually happened..

And they ruled exactly as they should have. As the CRA of 1964 doesn't include any protection for sexual orientation in private interactions between individuals.

Which has jack shit to do with Obergefell ruling. As that covers interactions between the State and individuals, basing itself on the 5th and 14th amendments. With protections for gays and lesbians having been established in Romer, Lawrence, and Windsor.

You simply don't know what you're talking about, Sil. You don't understand the law, our constitution, or even the most basic aspects of the relationship with government and the people. You're latest pseudo-legal fixation demonstrates the same.

So, wherever a new court finds the words "sex" and "sexual orientation", they must now forever forward not consider them the same legal entity....including those cases challenging old rulings where the mistake was made substituting one for the other interchangeably...

Two problems with your assumptions: the 'sex and sexual orientation' argument has absolutely nothing to do with the Obergefell ruling. And the 7th court doesn't dictate terms to the Supreme Court. You've got it backwards.

Seriously, Sil...listen; You genuinely have no idea how the law works. All you're doing is self soothing, feeding yourself comforting lies that even you know are meaningless horseshit. But your silly nonsense has no effect on the real world.

 

[Silhouette]

No shit it happened, dumb ass. I have stated on several occasions that I agree with the ruling as The Civil Rights Act doesn't mention sexual orientation. You pretending this finding has any bearing on Obergefell is where your fantasy takes hold. Do you ever tire of making a fool of yourself? I certainly don't. In fact, I love it. lol

So...you believe that the federal courts not considering civil rights as applying to sexual orientation is a correct interpretation of law....And if you're next going to say "no, sexual orientation is a civil right under another Act of Congress", I'd like you to point me to that document. Otherwise, all you can point me to is instances where the Judicial Branch created Constitutional Acts out of thin air, in order to "interpret" these nonexistent acts as "civil rights for sexual orientation".

Which is impossible because the Judicial Branch is limited to interpreting the Constitution, not adding things to it. That is alone the job of the Legislative Branch.

Like I said, enjoy the "legality" of Obergefell while you can... Hively v Ivy Tech is a poison arrow in the very heart of the premise of Obergefell.. The 14th Amendment says "sex"....not "sexual orientation".....

 

[Skylar]

No shit it happened, dumb ass. I have stated on several occasions that I agree with the ruling as The Civil Rights Act doesn't mention sexual orientation. You pretending this finding has any bearing on Obergefell is where your fantasy takes hold. Do you ever tire of making a fool of yourself? I certainly don't. In fact, I love it. lol

So...you believe that the federal courts not considering civil rights as applying to sexual orientation is a correct interpretation of law.

More specifically, the 7th Appeals court not recognizing sexual orientation as being included in the CIvil Rights Act of 1964 in interactions between the employees and employers. With the CRA making no mention of sexual orientation.

Which in another fit of pseudo-legal nonsense, you insist somehow damages Obergefell.....which has nothing to do with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and covers interactions between the State and private individuals.

...And if you're next going to say "no, sexual orientation is a civil right under another Act of Congress", I'd like you to point me to that document.

Sigh.....wow. Just wow. Um, Sil......the Civil Rights Act of 1964 doesn't say that 'race is a civil right' or 'sex is a civil right'. Making your 'no, sexual orientation isn't a civil right' gibberish just more meaningless nonsense.

Just like your 'contract' nonsense, our 'Ferber' nonsense, your 'Caperton' nonsense, your impeachment nonsense, your 'infancy doctrine' nonsense, your 'Prince's Trust' nonsense.

Notice the pattern yet?

 

[Syriusly]

Thank you for condensing several years worth of your fantasies into one thread. I am a little disappointed you left out The Prince's Trust and Ferber in your lame ramblings.

Every single one of your aforementioned points has been reduced to smoldering ruins time and again, but yet you insist on repeating them as if it somehow makes them true. Hint: it doesn't. Get a life, Sil.

She left out Harvey Milk and the Gay's forcing the Pope to resign.

Oh and Roof being a sekrit gay who killed the church members because of his gayness- and ignore his racial postings online.

 

[Syriusly]

No shit it happened, dumb ass. I have stated on several occasions that I agree with the ruling as The Civil Rights Act doesn't mention sexual orientation. You pretending this finding has any bearing on Obergefell is where your fantasy takes hold. Do you ever tire of making a fool of yourself? I certainly don't. In fact, I love it. lol

So...you believe that the federal courts not considering civil rights as applying to sexual orientation is a correct interpretation of law....And if you're next going to say "no, sexual orientation is a civil right under another Act of Congress", I'd like you to point me to that document. Otherwise, all you can point me to is instances where the Judicial Branch created Constitutional Acts out of thin air, in order to "interpret" these nonexistent acts as "civil rights for sexual orientation".

Which is impossible because the Judicial Branch is limited to interpreting the Constitution, not adding things to it. That is alone the job of the Legislative Branch.

Like I said, enjoy the "legality" of Obergefell while you can... Hively v Ivy Tech is a poison arrow in the very heart of the premise of Obergefell.. The 14th Amendment says "sex"....not "sexual orientation".....

I can't say that i bother to read Silhouette's rants.

Meanwhile, Americans- regardless of the gender of who they love- can marry now.

Silhouette hates that.

Another example of why America is a wonderful country.

 

[Syriusly]

[QUO
Third, the 7th appellant court is subject to the Supreme Court. Not the other way around. Killing your entire argument yet again..

LOL........you mean that the Supreme Court doesn't have to defer to the Appellate Court?

Silhouette- guess she got tired of attacking Trump's wife and remember her first priority- bigotry against gays.

 

[Silhouette]

^^ As the Hively v Ivy Tech (2016) case makes its way up to the USSC, then the Supreme Court has to weigh its findings/precedent vs arguments/precedent opposed to make a decision. When those things happen with legal concepts and interpretations diametrically-opposed, you'd better believe the lower courts can have an impact at the Top..

She left out Harvey Milk and the Gay's forcing the Pope to resign.

Oh and Roof being a sekrit gay who killed the church members because of his gayness- and ignore his racial postings online.

Well thanks for bringing all that up anyway. As if poking fun at it changes the credibility of the evidence in any of those examples...

...but it does make for a nice diversion. When you're ready to share your feelings about the recent ruling making the legal term "sex" in no way equal to "sexual orientation"...and how that applies to the 14th Amendment's interpretation, just let me know...OK?

 

[Skylar]

^^ As the Hively v Ivy Tech (2016) case makes its way up to the USSC, then the Supreme Court has to weigh its findings/precedent vs arguments/precedent opposed to make a decision.

Sure. But it has nothing to do with Obergefell. Obergefell isn't based on the idea that sex is sexual orientation. Obergefell isn't about employees and employers. Obergefell isn't based on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

Hively is.

The two cases have jack shit to do with each other. You're offering us another one of your pseudo-legal fixations where you just make up random accusations that result in absolutely nothing.

You've done the same thing with Caperton v. Massey.

You've done the same thing with impeachment for Kagan and Ginsberg.

You've done the same thing Windsor v. US.

You've done the same thing with 'contract law'.

You've done the same thing with the 'infancy doctrine'.

You've done the same thing with Ferber v. New York.


The result for each of your pseudo-legal fixations was the same in every instance:

Absolutely nothing.

 

[Silhouette]

^^ As the Hively v Ivy Tech (2016) case makes its way up to the USSC, then the Supreme Court has to weigh its findings/precedent vs arguments/precedent opposed to make a decision....When you're ready to share your feelings about the recent ruling making the legal term "sex" in no way equal to "sexual orientation"...and how that applies to the 14th Amendment's interpretation, just let me know...OK?

Sure. But it has nothing to do with Obergefell. Obergefell isn't based on the idea that sex is sexual orientation. Obergefell isn't about employees and employers. Obergefell isn't based on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

Hively is.

The two cases have jack shit to do with each other.

Round and round the mulberry bush.... Skylar. Obergefell was hinged on the Court interpreting the 14th Amendment as extending to sexual orientation under the word "sex" in the wording of its body. A federal court just found in Hively v Ivy Tech (2016) that for the purposes of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; that the words "sex" and "sexual orientation" are not the same legal description.

How long do you think it will take a sharp team of attorneys intent on overturning the huge ramifications of Obergefell on states that want no such thing, to make the argument of the precedent of Hively v Ivy Tech (2016) that the Court's interpretation of the word "sex" in the 14th Amendment, cannot equal "sexual orientation" in its protections and coverage? And, how long do you think it will take for them to bring up that since the 14th is about EQUALITY, that it is unconstitutional to grant marriage privilege to JUST SOME sexual orientations (misinterpreted/added to the US Constitution by the Judicial branch) but not other sexual orientations like the sexual attraction to multiple partners or to one's own blood relative(s)?

You are aware that if any substantive change is to happen in the US Constitution, like creating a new class for protection under the 14th for just some (antithetical to the 14th's intent) sexual behaviors, that substantive change HAS to be done by the Legislative branch.

 

[mdk]

Round and round the mulberry bush.... Skylar. Obergefell was hinged on the Court interpreting the 14th Amendment as extending to sexual orientation under the word "sex" in the wording of its body. A federal court just found in Hively v Ivy Tech (2016) that for the purposes of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; that the words "sex" and "sexual orientation" are not the same legal description.

How long do you think it will take a sharp team of attorneys intent on overturning the huge ramifications of Obergefell on states that want no such thing, to make the argument of the precedent of Hively v Ivy Tech (2016) that the Court's interpretation of the word "sex" in the 14th Amendment, cannot equal "sexual orientation" in its protections and coverage? And, how long do you think it will take for them to bring up that since the 14th is about EQUALITY, that it is unconstitutional to grant marriage privilege to JUST SOME sexual orientations (misinterpreted/added to the US Constitution by the Judicial branch) but not other sexual orientations like the sexual attraction to multiple partners or to one's own blood relative(s)?

You are aware that if any substantive change is to happen in the US Constitution, like creating a new class for protection under the 14th for just some (antithetical to the 14th's intent) sexual behaviors, that substantive change HAS to be done by the Legislative branch.

Below is the 14th Amendment:

14th Amendment

Here is the exact number of times the word sex appears in the 14th Amendment: Zero. My guess it will be a while before that sharp team of attorneys gets on it.

You've never read it before, have you?

 

[Silhouette]

14th Amendment

Here is the exact number of times the word sex appears in the 14th Amendment: Zero. My guess it will be a while before that sharp team of attorneys gets on it.

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States

Hmm...a privilege is a privilege. In my state, blind people can't enjoy the privilege of a driver's license. They're citizens, so what gives? And where do people with a polyamorist sexual orientation fit in with Obergefell? And since Obergefell abridges the privilege (implied contractual right) of children to both a mother and father in marriage, how is Obergefell legal? The only way it would be is if children aren't US citizens.

One thing's for sure. When they start taking out the microscope on the 14th and its terms, they'll back up and all agree on one thing: that the 14th's intent is equality. At that precise moment in time, they will have no choice but to find one of two things: 1. That ALL sexual orientations (not just hetero or homo) may not be denied the privilege of marriage or 2. That sexual behaviors don't have a right to dictate to the majority how it will define the privilege of marriage within each state's boundaries.

(see the privilege of driving and the blind in my example here).

 

[mdk]

14th Amendment

Here is the exact number of times the word sex appears in the 14th Amendment: Zero. My guess it will be a while before that sharp team of attorneys gets on it.

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States

Hmm...a privilege is a privilege. In my state, blind people can't enjoy the privilege of a driver's license. They're citizens, so what gives? And where do people with a polyamorist sexual orientation fit in with Obergefell? And since Obergefell abridges the privilege (implied contractual right) of children to both a mother and father in marriage, how is Obergefell legal? The only way it would be is if children aren't US citizens.

One thing's for sure. When they start taking out the microscope on the 14th and its terms, they'll back up and all agree on one thing: that the 14th's intent is equality. At that precise moment in time, they will have no choice but to find one of two things: 1. That ALL sexual orientations (not just hetero or homo) may not be denied the privilege of marriage or 2. That sexual behaviors don't have a right to dictate to the majority how it will define the privilege of marriage within each state's boundaries.

(see the privilege of driving and the blind in my example here).

Marriage isn't a privilege and children are not an implied party to a marriage contract in any state. Not one. It doesn't matter how often you repeat the same bullshit, it is not based on anything other then your own mentally ill obsession and imagination. Tough shit for you, loser.