Alabama Chief Justice Issues Order Blocking Same-Sex Marriage Licenses

Jun 2012
41,958
15,181
Barsoom
Guess what, "We the People" is not the end all of what is, or is not, Constitutional. The Constitution was enacted, in part, to prevent the majority from trampling on the rights of the minority.

We have freedom of speech not only to prohibit the government from telling us what we can say but also to prohibit the majority, by way of the government, from prohibiting what we can say.

We have a XIVth Amendment to make sure that the government provides equal treatment under the law to everyone but also to make sure that the majority, by way of the government, provides equal treatment under the law.
The Fourteenth Amendment was not created to provide equal treatment under the law, and you cannot produce any evidence from the congressional debates or the actions by the Congress that wrote it. Explain why there was a need for the Fifteenth Amendment and the Nineteenth Amendment?

The Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause was created to serve only one purpose: equality in judicial proceedings along with the due process clause.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
Apr 2013
24,581
11,618
The Milky Way
We have a XIVth Amendment to make sure that the government provides equal treatment under the law to everyone but also to make sure that the majority, by way of the government, provides equal treatment under the law.

That isn't what it says, and you know that.

And the facts are that "equal protection of the laws" has a specific meaning, a specific intent. And that was not what 20th century progressive jurisprudence has twisted it into.


 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
Jul 2008
19,198
13,188
Virginia Beach, VA
That isn't what it says, and you know that.

And the facts are that "equal protection of the laws" has a specific meaning, a specific intent. And that was not what 20th century progressive jurisprudence has twisted it into.


Please, tell us what "equal protection of the laws" means then. What was the "specific meaning" and the "specific intent"
 
Jun 2012
41,958
15,181
Barsoom
Please, tell us what "equal protection of the laws" means then. What was the "specific meaning" and the "specific intent"
That the laws are applied equally. Not that the laws have to be equal. This came out of the freed slaves and whites being treated differently under the same law, and particularly firearm laws.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Jul 2008
19,198
13,188
Virginia Beach, VA
That the laws are applied equally. Not that the laws have to be equal. This came out of the freed slaves and whites being treated differently under the same law, and particularly firearm laws.
Correct, the law has to be applied equally. If a state has marriage laws they must be applied equally to opposite sex couples and same sex couples. Thanks for agreeing with me and the courts.

Now that jimmyb has acknowledged the simple truth I guess we can all call it a day.
 
Jun 2012
41,958
15,181
Barsoom
Correct, the law has to be applied equally. If a state has marriage laws they must be applied equally to opposite sex couples and same sex couples. Thanks for agreeing with me and the courts.

Now that jimmyb has acknowledged the simple truth I guess we can all call it a day.
You would have an argument if the state laws were just marriage laws with no distinction of male or female. The state laws did not, so your argument fails.

The laws do not have to be equal. A law or state constitution that states that marriage is between a man and a woman is constitutional under the intent of Fourteenth Amendment for myriad reasons outside the Fourteenth Amendment, and a fundemental right based on tradition and American history is just one.
 
Apr 2013
24,581
11,618
The Milky Way
The application of law being applied equally is in court proceedings. After all, different states have different ages at which someone can marry, so under the Progressive take on "equal protection" all state laws on marital age must be struck down. And naturally laws against polygamous marriage cannot stand, under this misreading of "equal protection of the laws". Nor can justification be given for laws prohibiting incestuous marriages, even the threat of offspring being ill conceived should not stand in the way of the new utopia of "marriage".


 
Last edited:
Jul 2014
15,871
10,079
massachusetts
You would have an argument if the state laws were just marriage laws with no distinction of male or female. The state laws did not, so your argument fails.

The laws do not have to be equal. A law or state constitution that states that marriage is between a man and a woman is constitutional under the intent of Fourteenth Amendment for myriad reasons outside the Fourteenth Amendment, and a fundemental right based on tradition and American history is just one.
So given your extensive knowledge, why do you think you are wrong?
You know you are wrong, same sex marriage is legal in 50 states.
So what do you have wrong?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Apr 2013
24,581
11,618
The Milky Way
Legal by the skin of its teeth thanks to five in black. Well, "legal" by judicial fiat. And SCOTUS has been wrong before, or should 'Dred Scott' still be the "law of the land'? Or 'Plessy'?