Roe is gone

[TreeFrogTrader]

The 14th amendment was ratified in 1868. Keep trying.

No, you keep trying. The 14th extends the Bill of Rights to the states.

Maybe you can establish where the Bill of Rights guarantees gay marriage and abortions before getting giddy over it being extended to the states.

Hint: The majority of the court could not find it, and could not even find where the dissent said it had found it. Like you, the dissent just feels it should be there even if it is not.

I sticking with the idea that Framers did not intend abortion and gay marriage rights and the Civil War and 14th amendments did not arise out of any intentions related to abortion or gay marriage either. Ya think? Duh. Here is a picture of your arse, now here is a picture of you pulling abortion rights out of your arse.

Refer to Dobbs v. Jackson Health Services for more on this.

 

[El OchoCinco]

No, you keep trying. The 14th extends the Bill of Rights to the states.

Maybe you can establish where the Bill of Rights guarantees gay marriage and abortions before getting giddy over it being extended to the states.

Hint: The majority of the court could not find it, and could not even find where the dissent said it had found it. Like you, the dissent just feels it should be there even if it is not.

I sticking with the idea that Framers did not intend abortion and gay marriage rights and the Civil War and 14th amendments did not arise out of any intentions related to abortion or gay marriage either. Ya think? Duh. Here is a picture of your arse, now here is a picture of you pulling abortion rights out of your arse.

Refer to Dobbs v. Jackson Health Services for more on this.

14th amendment guarantees equal protection under the law. Allowing men and women under the law to marry but banning same sex from marrying is not oaffording equal protection under the laws.

You want to read the 14th to not cover gay marriage, say it is because you are against gay marriage. But dont say that equal protection means only for the groups you agree with. Lets read the law correctly.

 

[El OchoCinco]

No, you keep trying. The 14th extends the Bill of Rights to the states.

Maybe you can establish where the Bill of Rights guarantees gay marriage and abortions before getting giddy over it being extended to the states.

Hint: The majority of the court could not find it, and could not even find where the dissent said it had found it. Like you, the dissent just feels it should be there even if it is not.

I sticking with the idea that Framers did not intend abortion and gay marriage rights and the Civil War and 14th amendments did not arise out of any intentions related to abortion or gay marriage either. Ya think? Duh. Here is a picture of your arse, now here is a picture of you pulling abortion rights out of your arse.

Refer to Dobbs v. Jackson Health Services for more on this.

Your comemnt implies the constitution should only cover what the white, wealthy landowners intended at that time. You are talking about abortion but you are also saying only what the framers intended should be found in the constitution...

So gay people were never intended to have rights under the constitution so they should have zero protection unuder the document?

Women were never intended to have full rights under the framer's intent, they were only given the right to vote but nothing else if we read it literally.

 

[Tsing Tao]

Your comemnt implies the constitution should only cover what the white, wealthy landowners intended at that time. You are talking about abortion but you are also saying only what the framers intended should be found in the constitution...

So gay people were never intended to have rights under the constitution so they should have zero protection unuder the document?

Women were never intended to have full rights under the framer's intent, they were only given the right to vote but nothing else if we read it literally.

What?

 

[El OchoCinco]

What?

"Maybe you can establish where the Bill of Rights guarantees gay marriage ... before getting giddy over it being extended to the states."

In this quote it implies that since gay marriage is not inteded by the framer's or mentioned specifically than it should not be protected by the constitution. What kind of reasonsing is that...14th Amendment says equal protection under the laws.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

So gay people were never intended to have rights under the constitution so they should have zero protection unuder the document?

.

Feel free to quote where I said that.

In fact the constitution confers rights to all humans and where it faile, the constitution was and can be amended.

But that does not mean that every assertion for special rights is to be found in the constitution. A transgender can and should be able to rely on the constitution for basic rights but, for example, when they assert that the Constitution gives them the right to be on the women's swim team, well, let's just say we are pretty far afield.

In addition, as lefties like to forget, there is such a thing as the legislative branch. You immediately conclude that I would want "zero protection" for certain groups, you overlook the possibility that I might, for gay marriage and abortion for example, just be saying that it for the people to decide. But when people petition the courts and make a constitutional argument I want to see the constitutional connection. Just as the court asked for in Dobbs.

 

[El OchoCinco]

Feel free to quote where I said that.

In fact the constitution confers rights to all humans and where it faile, the constitution was and can be amended.

But that does not mean that every assertion for special rights is to be found in the constitution. A transgender can and should be able to rely on the constitution for basic rights but, for example, when they assert that the Constitution gives them the right to be on the women's swim team, well, let's just say we are pretty far afield.

In addition, as lefties like to forget, there is such a thing as the legislative branch. You immediately conclude that I would want "zero protection" for certain groups, you overlook the possibility that I might, for gay marriage and abortion for example, just be saying that it for the people to decide. But when people petition the courts and make a constitutional argument I want to see the constitutional connection. Just as the court asked for in Dobbs.

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.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

QUOTE:
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

Your view is that because the states uphold marriage between men and women - based on thousands of years of tradition that the constitution therefore guarantees that any and all other combinations are a constitutional right. Two men. Two men and one transgender and lezbo. Who says the state can limit it to just two people?

That is a lefty view and has some support - even in the courts- so I am not going to replay it. But- just as we just saw with Roe- you could also wake up some morning and find that some things don't have as much foundation as you think. It is just a fact of life that some issues are safe for now, and some are on shakey ground but probably safe, and some are in serious trouble should there be a 2024 election and then another conservative added to the court.

Clarence Thomas has already fired the warning shot across your bow. Oberfield, Griswold and all that soft and squishy constitutional reasoning are at risk ifthat happens, just as Roe.

Could as easily end out with a justice dying and another lefty loon added too. There is an element of luck and serendipity in all of this for both sides.

In regard to the football coach case, and your "hating to burst my bubble" or however you put it, I say back to you "sorry to burst your bubble" that the court did not accept your view and the defenses view. But you, like Usual Tard, go ahead and be right about everything. I will be wrong but have the court on my side. I am OKAY with that.

This latest court appointment says she does not even know what a woman is so she will definitely be a vote for some crazy stuff.

 

[UsualName]

To the federal government marriage is a contract with benefits the exclusion of persons based on sex is illegal under the 14th amendment.

Yes we can wake up and the court say guess what no where is gay enumerated because they are a bunch of dipshits. But don’t pull this “tradition” crapola. It’s a contract with benefits conferred on by the state and federal government.

 

[El OchoCinco]

Your view is that because the states uphold marriage between men and women - based on thousands of years of tradition that the constitution therefore guarantees that any and all other combinations are a constitutional right. Two men. Two men and one transgender and lezbo. Who says the state can limit it to just two people?

That is a lefty view and has some support - even in the courts- so I am not going to replay it. But- just as we just saw with Roe- you could also wake up some morning and find that some things don't have as much foundation as you think. It is just a fact of life that some issues are safe for now, and some are on shakey ground but probably safe, and some are in serious trouble should there be a 2024 election and then another conservative added to the court.

Clarence Thomas has already fired the warning shot across your bow. Oberfield, Griswold and all that soft and squishy constitutional reasoning are at risk ifthat happens, just as Roe.

Could as easily end out with a justice dying and another lefty loon added too. There is an element of luck and serendipity in all of this for both sides.

In regard to the football coach case, and your "hating to burst my bubble" or however you put it, I say back to you "sorry to burst your bubble" that the court did not accept your view and the defenses view. But you, like Usual Tard, go ahead and be right about everything. I will be wrong but have the court on my side. I am OKAY with that.

No one is making an outrageous case, simply saying same sex marriage is allowed to have the same rights as marriage under the constitution. Plain and simple. that is all. It is not a lefty view, it is equal protection under the laws. Courts already outlawed polygamy so we are talking about same sex marriage here between 2 people.

I can only imagine you are cheering for the court to go after same sex marriage because you dont agree with it. Otherwise I dont understand your angle in supporting the constitution not protecting it.

Why does Thomas want to overturn a case that said laws against sodomy are unconstitutional? Like he is really concerned with anal sex that he wants to make it an issue for the court to overturn?

There is no luck when it comes to basic constitutional rights like marriage and privacy from the government telling a gay couple they dont count. We can leave aside your fantasies of two men and one transender and a lezbo.