Next on the Chopping Block - Same Sex Marriage

[protectionist]

bullshit, stop lying.

So you're saying that Clarence Thomas did NOT say the SCOTUS should reconsider rulings on gay marriage ?

 

[protectionist]

Reconsidering the ruling on SSM is not the same thing as saying the ruling should be overturned. the Court can disavow a ruling without overturning it. Maybe restating the premise upon which the decision would still meet constitutional standards could be handed down. To wit: marriage is and always has been an American as well as universal tradition for a very long time, and as such could be considered a constitutional right that should not be denied anywhere in the US. And since the 14th Amendment guarantees equal rights and protections under the law, SSM and interracial marriage cannot be denied either. Forget the right to privacy crap, which IMHO does exist but shouldn't be applicable in this case.

FALSE! Equal protection of the law doesnt not mean that everyone is going to necessarily be treated equally. People who act outside the norm and do things that society considers unacceptable (and in violation of legal standards) can be arrested and imprisoned. They are separated from the rest of society. They are not treated equally.

I know this s not a 100% exact analogy but it is close enough in that men marrying men is and should be recognized as pure nuts (trans even nuttier), and people involved in that, should at the very least be stopped by law from doing that. Many people would say that we have gone too far in de-institutionalizing the insane, and that we should go back to having insane asylums, but with more humane and advanced pharmaceuticals and methodologies.

As far as the 14th amendment is concerned, yes it does mention "equal protection of the law", but that equal protection is within the context of what the law is, and much of that is determined by legislation and the Supreme Court.

The following link is a short but worthwhile analysis >>

Should More Mentally Ill People Be Institutionalized? - Bipolar Burble Blog | Natasha Tracy

De-institutionalization moved people with a mental illness into the community, but can all people with a mental illness live in the community?

natashatracy.com

 

[miketx]

No doubt SSM will be shot down SOON. Justice Thomas already talking about it.

MSN

I don't care if faggots want to marry, I just wish they'd shut the hell up and and stop being pandered to. They're mental anyway.

 

[miketx]

bullshit, stop lying.

No commie, it may very well be in the works.

 

[Redfish]

So you're saying that Clarence Thomas did NOT say the SCOTUS should reconsider rulings on gay marriage ?

yes, RECONSIDER. That means take another look to verify that they are federal constitutional issues and not state issues. RECONSIDER does not mean repeal, it means take another look to determine if the previous rulings that they were constitutional issues were correct.

 

[Redfish]

No commie, it may very well be in the works.

see post 125

 

[JohnDB]

When the Sodomy decision is overturned that will pretty much end same sex unions at the same time.

Because many states wish for Sodomy to be criminalized once again. It's only by SCOTUS that it became legal to begin with using the exact same arguments of Roe v Wade. And if that decision was wrong its not going to be long before Sodomy is once again illegal in likely the same states that made abortion illegal.

 

[Faun]

Such as you referring to me as "gramps" and "senile", among other verbal abuses, as well as additional slurs you routinely throw at other posters in this forum. Ho hum. Yawn***

LOLOL

You retard, I am not bound by the 14th Amendment.

 

[protectionist]

yes, RECONSIDER. That means take another look to verify that they are federal constitutional issues and not state issues. RECONSIDER does not mean repeal, it means take another look to determine if the previous rulings that they were constitutional issues were correct.

My guess is SSM will be shot down. Sanity restored.

 

[protectionist]

LOLOL

You retard, I am not bound by the 14th Amendment.

Sanity and decency is what you are not bound by.

 

[miketx]

see post 125

See it yourself

 

[Faun]

Sanity and decency is what you are not bound by.

Slobbers the idiot who thinks I'm bound by the 14th Amendment.

 

[protectionist]

Slobbers the idiot who thinks I'm bound by the 14th Amendment.

All Americans are bound by the Constitution, so NO you are not bound by the 14th amendment (or any other part of the Constitution). That's because you are not an American, or a national of any country in the world. You are a LEFTIST - ie, INTERnationalist, globalist loon.

 

[Faun]

All Americans are bound by the Constitution, so NO you are not bound by the 14th amendment (or any other part of the Constitution). That's because you are not an American, or a national of any country in the world. You are a LEFTIST - ie, INTERnationalist, globalist loon.

LOLOL

You're beyond senile, ya moron. The Constitution is a framework for the government.

Here's the relevant section from the 14th Amendment that is above your G-d given comprehension level...

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.​

Savvy, moron? The state (i.e., government) cannot deny any person "equal protection of the laws."

I'm the person in that equation, not the state. Dayum, you're fucking insane.

 

[protectionist]

LOLOL

You're beyond senile, ya moron. The Constitution is a framework for the government.

Here's the relevant section from the 14th Amendment that is above your G-d given comprehension level...

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.​

Savvy, moron? The state (i.e., government) cannot deny any person "equal protection of the laws."

I'm the person in that equation, not the state. Dayum, you're fucking insane.

The Constitution has nothing to do with you. It only applies to AMERICANS. You're a globalist loon tune. You're just like Obama, who declared himself a "citizen of the world" Now shut up and go take some guitar lessons.

 

[Faun]

The Constitution has nothing to do with you. It only applies to AMERICANS. You're a globalist loon tune. You're just like Obama, who declared himself a "citizen of the world" Now shut up and go take some guitar lessons.

 

[protectionist]

 

[Pellinore]

Let me put my Constitutional interpretation hat on here for Faun v. Protectionist ...

Anyone within the jurisdiction of the United States can enjoy the guarantees protected by the Constitution. It doesn't matter where they are from or what they have renounced. That said ...

A "Constitutional right" is, by definition, a guarantee that the federal government will prevent some other entity from trampling on an individual's guaranteed freedoms. That means the big idea is that it protects Faun (and all of us) rather than making us "subject" to anything.

However, if Faun, for example, owns a business that serves only star-bellied sneetches but denies service to plain-bellied sneetches, the 14th Amendment provided the authority for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to prohibit Faun from doing that, in order to protect the plain-bellies' right to equal protection.

So yeah, Faun is protected by the 14th rather than limited by it, unless he is depriving someone else of their freedoms.

 

[task0778]

However, if Faun, for example, owns a business that serves only star-bellied sneetches but denies service to plain-bellied sneetches, the 14th Amendment provided the authority for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to prohibit Faun from doing that, in order to protect the plain-bellies' right to equal protection.

If sneeches are not included in the 14th Amendment then I'm not sure they enjoy constitutional protection. Faun is allowed to deny service to people of a particular political persuasion, i.e., liberal or conservative, cuz that ain't coverted in the Amendment.

 

[Faun]

Let me put my Constitutional interpretation hat on here for Faun v. Protectionist ...

Anyone within the jurisdiction of the United States can enjoy the guarantees protected by the Constitution. It doesn't matter where they are from or what they have renounced. That said ...

A "Constitutional right" is, by definition, a guarantee that the federal government will prevent some other entity from trampling on an individual's guaranteed freedoms. That means the big idea is that it protects Faun (and all of us) rather than making us "subject" to anything.

However, if Faun, for example, owns a business that serves only star-bellied sneetches but denies service to plain-bellied sneetches, the 14th Amendment provided the authority for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to prohibit Faun from doing that, in order to protect the plain-bellies' right to equal protection.

So yeah, Faun is protected by the 14th rather than limited by it, unless he is depriving someone else of their freedoms.

Except the Equal Protection clause still only applies to government entities...

Equal Protection of The Laws

: Analysis and Interpretation of the of the US Constitution

law.justia.com

The Fourteenth Amendment, by its terms, limits discrimination only by governmental entities, not by private parties.​