NationStates Jolt Archive

Hey, I was going through the U.S. Constitution when I realized that the ultimate law of the land protects the rights of gay and lesbian couples to marry. I quote:

Admendment XIV.
Section 1. 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.

Hey, I was going through the U.S. Constitution when I realized that the ultimate law of the land protects the rights of gay and lesbian couples to marry. I quote:

Admendment XIV.
Section 1. 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.

Yeah, I've puzzled over that myself. But blacks went through the same hell with civil rights, so it must take people a while to wake up from their prejudiced stupor. People insist on making religious and biological distinctions, when it's not really the issue.

your are right exept for one thing the federal government said hey hey hey none of that now we will take and say yes or no. (in about 15 yrs when we finally stop arguing) the only reason the feds stepped in in the 1st place was cuz but is a catholic and he is against gay/lesbian marriages. :mp5: :gundge: :sniper:

Has nothing to do with it. It has to do with things like the death penalty cases in georgia where blacks were given the death penalty for things like stealing while whites were just given a little jail time. Biiiiig difference.

They know they don't have a leg to stand on constitutionally.

Hence, the recent fad of amending the constitution.

It should be seen as an act of desperation.

As long as we keep them from changing the national constitution (which we are in a safe position), it's just a matter of time before the Supreme Court overturns each state constitutional amendment. Hopefully this happens soon, before Bush gets a chance to pack the court.

Has nothing to do with it. It has to do with things like the death penalty cases in georgia where blacks were given the death penalty for things like stealing while whites were just given a little jail time. Biiiiig difference.

You are wrong. It has to do with both cases. It has to do with protecting blacks and gays and women and men and whites and blues and christians and jews and muslims and republicans and democrats and independents and 3rd partyers and you and me.

Read the admendment: did it say "just black guys who get the death penalty for things like stealing while whites were just given a little jail time."?

Or did it say:
"Article XIV.
Section 1. 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. "

i sry but our forefathers will be doing a 360 in there grave if gays and lesbians get the right to marry. i feel that marrage is a union of a man/woman but that gays should be allow to have same benifits as married ppl just not be married.

You are all wrong. Moral issues are left to the states by the 10th amendment.

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. "

Wow, that sure stopped Guantanamo Bay...

You are all wrong. Moral issues are left to the states by the 10th amendment.
Hmm...define "moral issues".

Can a state ban contraception on moral grounds?

You are all wrong. Moral issues are left to the states by the 10th amendment.

Since when is marriage a moral issue?

Wow, that sure stopped Guantanamo Bay...
They weren't citizens. I mean it was still fucked up but they don't have constitutional rights becasue they were a) noncitizens and b) enemy combatants.

i sry but our forefathers will be doing a 360 in there grave if gays and lesbians get the right to marry. i feel that marrage is a union of a man/woman but that gays should be allow to have same benifits as married ppl just not be married.
They've been rolling in their graves since blacks and women got the right to vote.

Half of them started rolling when the slaves were freed.


Anyways, just what is the big hangup you have with the word "marriage"? Basically, you're okay with them being married, just as long as they don't call it "marriage"?

What are you afraid of?

Wow, that sure stopped Guantanamo Bay...

Nice job going off topic on a non sequitur, genius.

They weren't citizens. I mean it was still fucked up but they don't have constitutional rights becasue they were a) noncitizens and b) enemy combatants.

But it doesn't say "citizen" - it says "person". If non-citizens have no rights in the US, then I'd better rethink revisiting it...

And, also, "enemy combatants" is a non sequitur.

Hmm...define "moral issues".

Can a state ban contraception on moral grounds?

No, you have a constitutonal right to privacy.
In the case of Griswold v. Connecticut the court overturned the conviction of the CT director of planned parenthood for giving out condoms because " a personal right of privacy emanates from the penumbras of the Bill of Rights"

( I just happened to have an old con law book on my shelf)

Nice job going off topic on a non sequitur, genius.

Save your personal attacks for someone who cares about your opinion, please, and Guantanamo Bay is a wonderful eye sore that doesn't seem to go along with the quoted paragraph.

cuz the way i put it above the damn catholics will finally win the fight against it and also the gays/lesbians will win most of what they want. to i look at both sides most of the time.

No, you have a constitutonal right to privacy.
In the case of Griswold v. Connecticut the court overturned the conviction of the CT director of planned parenthood for giving out condoms because " a personal right of privacy emanates from the penumbras of the Bill of Rights"

( I just happened to have an old con law book on my shelf)
Yup, I'm familiar with the case. And recently Texas' sodomy laws were struck down based on the right to privacy.

But your original comment about "moral issues" being left to the states...just what is "private" and what is "moral"?

Is marriage private?

Yup, I'm familiar with the case. And recently Texas' sodomy laws were struck down based on the right to privacy.

But your original comment about "moral issues" being left to the states...just what is "private" and what is "moral"?

Is marriage private?

I aint a lawyer... yet! I could look it up but believe it or not I actually have a consitutional law exam in 11 hours but we haven't covered privacy yet ( it is a two semester course). I think it has to do with the fact that marriage is a contract or something. I see what you are getting at and it doesn't make a lot of sense to me either. I am curious now so I will look it to it but now I must get off this wretched forum and study.

Gay Marriage is one of the most complicated and most disputed issues of Bush's presidency. We're probobly never going to hear the end of it :gundge:

finally a sign of intelegent life!!!

You are wrong. It has to do with both cases. It has to do with protecting blacks and gays and women and men and whites and blues and christians and jews and muslims and republicans and democrats and independents and 3rd partyers and you and me.

Read the admendment: did it say "just black guys who get the death penalty for things like stealing while whites were just given a little jail time."?

Or did it say:
"Article XIV.
Section 1. 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. "
The amendment means that the law must be followed as it is written and that the laws cannot violate the Constitution. That is all. It is only if the law were to already say that anyone could get married and only heterosexual marriages were allowed then you would have a case of violating the 14th amendment.

Gay Marriage is one of the most complicated and most disputed issues of Bush's presidency. We're probobly never going to hear the end of it :gundge:

So, why not legalise and be done with it?

because of all the damn catholics including bush duhhhhh didnt you read what i wrote above?

because of all the damn catholics including bush duhhhhh didnt you read what i wrote above?

Uh... but Bush isn't Catholic. He's hardcore Baptist.

okay well then cuz the damn christians then. there i cant be wrong.

because of all the damn catholics including bush duhhhhh didnt you read what i wrote above?

There is no need for impudence, and that wasn't an answer.

The amendment means that the law must be followed as it is written and that the laws cannot violate the Constitution. That is all. It is only if the law were to already say that anyone could get married and only heterosexual marriages were allowed then you would have a case of violating the 14th amendment.
*NOTE: The emphisas is mine.

Is that not the case already?

I aint a lawyer... yet! I could look it up but believe it or not I actually have a consitutional law exam in 11 hours but we haven't covered privacy yet ( it is a two semester course). I think it has to do with the fact that marriage is a contract or something. I see what you are getting at and it doesn't make a lot of sense to me either. I am curious now so I will look it to it but now I must get off this wretched forum and study.

Yes, you're right. Marriage is a contract, not a moral issue.

*NOTE: The emphisas is mine.

Is that not the case already?
No, the current laws specifically say for the most part that ONLY hetero marriages are allowed.

Wow, that sure stopped Guantanamo Bay...

People in Guantanamo bay arent citizens though. Not like that stops it from being incredibly wrong though.

No, the current laws specifically say for the most part that ONLY hetero marriages are allowed.

Right. Which violates Admendment 14, Section 1, of the constitution.

Who said marriage was a privilige? Also, an amendment can strike that down.

i sry but our forefathers will be doing a 360 in there grave if gays and lesbians get the right to marry. i feel that marrage is a union of a man/woman but that gays should be allow to have same benifits as married ppl just not be married.

Our forefathers would be spitting in their grave if they saw an African American in a business suit going to work with a leather briefcase. PLEASE try to keep in mind that our forefathers weren't all-knowing, morally perfect human beings.

Gays & lesbians should have the right to marriage. And I'll make a deal with you. If you find out that your neighbors living down the street from your are a gay, married couple, and your marriage instantly means nothing because of that fact alone, I owe you a dollar.

You are all wrong. Moral issues are left to the states by the 10th amendment.

I'd agree with you.

Unfortunately, the Constitution HAS been changed on moral grounds before: The 18th Amendment: Prohibition. And it took them 14 YEARS to figure out how bad an idea that was!!

pay up my next door neighbors that are afraid to leave there house are gay. cuz they are surrounded by republicans who could fake a death and the police wouldnt do a thing. trust me my community is a screwed up place.

People in Guantanamo bay arent citizens though. Not like that stops it from being incredibly wrong though.

But it doesn't say citizen. It says "person" like I commented in an earlier post. If only citizens had rights in the US, then why would any sane foreigner go there?

Right. Which violates Admendment 14, Section 1, of the constitution.
No it doesn't. That amendment says all laws must be upheld equally, not that all laws must be equal. That is the difference between what reality is, and what you want the amendment to say.

i sry but our forefathers will be doing a 360 in there grave if gays and lesbians get the right to marry. i feel that marrage is a union of a man/woman but that gays should be allow to have same benifits as married ppl just not be married.

You'ld likely be surprised... The Founders are probably rolling in their graves (and likely have been for the last ~2 centeries) for the crap politicians are pulling... When the Founding Fathers were on earth, marriage was not part of any state or federal rule... everything was running under Common Law... Had it been left that way, this all would have been a non-issue... As such, the ancestors of your own ideologies, fucked with the laws, usurped the powers of the people... and have created much of the mess we live in today...

Remove marriage legislation, take everything back to Common Law, and all issues are taken care of in relation to Gay marriage.

No it doesn't. That amendment says all laws must be upheld equally, not that all laws must be equal. That is the difference between what reality is, and what you want the amendment to say.

Yes, and right now marriage laws aren't being held up for gays. Believe it or not, legislators didn't put in a loophole in the admendment to ban gay marriages.

Aren't there like 150 threads on gay marriage?

Why do we care? Somebody?

I mean, I can understand if Christians don't want gay people to marry in the Christian church, it is their church after all. But, what if the two gay people aren't Christian? What if they're athiest, or agnostic or New Ageist or something?

Are we really talking about enough people to make even a tiny difference?

Aren't there like 150 threads on gay marriage?

Why do we care? Somebody?

I mean, I can understand if Christians don't want gay people to marry in the Christian church, it is their church after all. But, what if the two gay people aren't Christian? What if they're athiest, or agnostic or New Ageist or something?

Are we really talking about enough people to make even a tiny difference?

Approximately 11% of the population.