Roe is gone

[TreeFrogTrader]

Courts already outlawed polygamy so we are talking about same sex marriage here between 2 people.

Or rather, the courts upheld states outlawing polygamy- acknowledging the power of the states to make decisions in such matters.

And in regard to your argument about a constitutional right to gay marriage I have acknowledged several times over that you are in a good place on that because the court is with you on that - unless and until it is not- just as with Roe.

 

[Frederick Foresight]

 

[Buy1Sell2]

Or rather, the courts upheld states outlawing polygamy- acknowledging the power of the states to make decisions in such matters.

And in regard to your argument about a constitutional right to gay marriage I have acknowledged several times over that you are in a good place on that because the court is with you on that - unless and until it is not- just as with Roe.

That's correct. Excellent posting! Courts are not charged with making laws.

 

[Buy1Sell2]

QUOTE: Maybe you can establish where the Bill of Rights guarantees gay marriage
(not talking about abortion here)

Why should states get to decide on gay marriage rights...

Simple, 14th A says equal protection under the laws. Not allowing gay people to get marries is not conferring equal protection under the laws. You said you want the states to decide. States dont get to decide what rights to give people when the constitution protects everyone's right, including to get married between same or different sex couples.

I quoted what you said that gay marriage is not in the constitution. not every single thing has to be enumerated because the Amendment says equal protection under the laws an due process. If one group is afforded a right and another is denied for no reason then the 14th A covers that as shown by hundreds of cases.

The 14th Amendment applies to discrimination initially conveyed upon blacks but has since been interpreted to also apply to other classifications. It has not, however, been tested with regard to gay marriage. Your assertion that if one group is afforded a right and another is denied, is not correct in that all groups that would benefit from the 14th have not been identified as of yet and it may never extend to gay marriage.

 

[El OchoCinco]

Or rather, the courts upheld states outlawing polygamy- acknowledging the power of the states to make decisions in such matters.

And in regard to your argument about a constitutional right to gay marriage I have acknowledged several times over that you are in a good place on that because the court is with you on that - unless and until it is not- just as with Roe.

i dont need the court with me..its established rights under the equal protection clause... but wait until Thomas gets his hands on it and wants to remove it and Alabama decides gay people should have no rights to marry or partner benefits.

SC decided blacks were not people until they "changed their mind". The court decided to overturn Roe....that's fine until a state declares rape and incest are no exception and insists a 12 year old carries a rapists baby and then the father has rights the woman never had.

On gay marriage court does not need to even bother unless the supposed jesus.lovers want to.claim the lord does.not support gay marriage so they should overturn protections. Took the courts almost 200 years to say people of different races have a right to marry... they like to drag their feet on giving rights to non whites is seems...

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

i dont need the court with me..its established rights under the equal protection clause... .

I see. The right to gay marriage is so clear in the constitution that you don't even need to have the court weigh in on it. Heh, you have been around the block enough to know how that type of assumption works out. Obergefell v. Hodges turned out to be a 5-4 decision so it was apparently not as clear to the Court.

But I hear ya. For example, the Constitution is so clear that the people have the right to bear arms and own guns that there should be no need for the courts to even take up some of these cases.

 

[Buy1Sell2]

i dont need the court with me..its established rights under the equal protection clause...

No, it's not.

 

[elderado]

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

If the court looked like that I can guarantee ya that there would not have been any leaked draft. You have to have Sotomayor there for that.

 

[elderado]

Or Kagan.

She musta missed that part about the Obama's buying that Martha's Vineyard oceanfront.

Weird.