Bill O’Reilly and Andrea Tantaros misconstrue 14th Amendment and “equal protection of the laws”.

[bodecea]

Gay marriage is not a religious argument.

BTW, why didn't the Mormons win? I thought religious freedom was trump in the Constitution...

next time they will win, because with the gay marriage precedent there will be no viable legal argument against them.

Why hasn't polygamy become legal in the states that now have same sex marriage?

there hasn't yet been a court challenge, but the ACLU is gearing up for one. Its coming, you asked for it

You don't seem to understand that gay rights are not contingent on any other people's rights issues. Gays either have a constitutional right to marry or they don't;

even IF it contributed to the polygamists' argument, which it doesn't, that is not sufficient cause to deny a specific separate to someone who is independently entitled to that right.

btw, by your reasoning, opposite sex civil marriage of ANY kind is the slippery slope to every other kind of civil marriage.

Gays would never get the right to civil marriage if heterosexuals hadn't gotten it in the first place.

Please show me the application for marriage license that has a box for sexual orientation.
If you cant then gays have the same right to marry as anyone else.

Wait.....you are offering "proof" a document that can be easily changed thru a retype?

 

[Redfish]

actually he is correct.

He's wrong if the court rules otherwise.

so you are willing to put the entire society in the hands of a few judges? what if all those judges were conservatives? would you still feel that way?

What if there were no judges to keep states from banning firearms? Are you still willing to abolish the courts and their power to interpret the law?

apples and oranges.

judges are there to enforce the law, not to make it.

You dodged the question. You expressed a desire that judges not have the power to uphold the 2nd amendment.

nope. the 2nd is clear on gun rights, the 14th is not clear on gay marriage.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You don't have to if state laws banning gay marriage are ruled unconstitutional.

true. and such a ruling would open the door for all other forms of marriage using that ruling as a valid legal precedent. The arguments for polygamy would be EXACTLY the same as the arguments for gay marriage. equal rights, discrimination, 14th amendment.

An amendment would prevent that because the amendment could limit marriage to two human beings.

There is currently no federal law against polygamy that applies to the states.

Let me say this for the thousandth time. There is no argument the polygamists could make after a ruling in favor of same sex marriage that they can't make now.

Oh, and let's consider this. Maybe, from a strictly constitutional perspective, both same sex marriage and polygamy are rights,

as long as opposite sex monogamy is legal at the state level. THEN it has nothing to do with same sex marriage.

theri argument would be exactly as the argument now being used by the gay rights folks. The difference is that they would have a valid legal precedent to support their argument.

do you understand the legal concept of precedents?

Yes I do. You're the one who doesn't. Legal monogamous marriage is not a precedent requiring legal plural marriage.

no, but legal same sex marriage would be. The only way to prevent it would be to legalize gay marriage and limit it to two persons. Do you think you could get that past the ACLU?

Federal law does not prohibit polygamy NOW. Am I going to have to repeat THAT a thousand times before it sinks in?

 

[bodecea]

That's just your opinion and you're an out on the fringe constitutional nut.

actually he is correct.

He's wrong if the court rules otherwise.

so you are willing to put the entire society in the hands of a few judges? what if all those judges were conservatives? would you still feel that way?

What if there were no judges to keep states from banning firearms? Are you still willing to abolish the courts and their power to interpret the law?

apples and oranges.

judges are there to enforce the law, not to make it.

Seriously? You just said that judges "enforce" the law? Isn't that the Executive Branch's job?

 

[johnwk]

Seems to me that most, if not all, of the posters in this forum who support "gay marriage" as being a protected right under the 14th Amendment are delinquent in providing documented evidence from the Congressional Debates of the 39th Congress to support their contention. And this includes Bill O'Reilly!


Similarly, in each case in which a judge has offered a ruling that the 14th Amendment prohibits a state to refuse to issue a marriage license to a same sex couple, the judge neglects to provide a shred of evidence from the 39th Congressional Debates to support their assertion! And this is what the argument is really about ___ federal judges using their office of public trust to impose their personal views and justice as the rule of law and in so doing circumvent both the text of the 14th Amendment and its framers expressed purposes for adopting the amendment which gives context to the 14th Amendment's plain language. In doing so, the people in America lose the very purpose of having a written constitution and a constitutionally limited system of government.


JWK

"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

 

[Redfish]

next time they will win, because with the gay marriage precedent there will be no viable legal argument against them.

Why hasn't polygamy become legal in the states that now have same sex marriage?

there hasn't yet been a court challenge, but the ACLU is gearing up for one. Its coming, you asked for it

You don't seem to understand that gay rights are not contingent on any other people's rights issues. Gays either have a constitutional right to marry or they don't;

even IF it contributed to the polygamists' argument, which it doesn't, that is not sufficient cause to deny a specific separate to someone who is independently entitled to that right.

btw, by your reasoning, opposite sex civil marriage of ANY kind is the slippery slope to every other kind of civil marriage.

Gays would never get the right to civil marriage if heterosexuals hadn't gotten it in the first place.

Please show me the application for marriage license that has a box for sexual orientation.
If you cant then gays have the same right to marry as anyone else.

Wait.....you are offering "proof" a document that can be easily changed thru a retype?

like obama's birth certificate?

 

[bodecea]

He's wrong if the court rules otherwise.

so you are willing to put the entire society in the hands of a few judges? what if all those judges were conservatives? would you still feel that way?

What if there were no judges to keep states from banning firearms? Are you still willing to abolish the courts and their power to interpret the law?

apples and oranges.

judges are there to enforce the law, not to make it.

You dodged the question. You expressed a desire that judges not have the power to uphold the 2nd amendment.

nope. the 2nd is clear on gun rights, the 14th is not clear on gay marriage.

How clear is the 2nd on auto weapons? Tanks? Ammo? Licensing?

 

[NYcarbineer]

He's wrong if the court rules otherwise.

so you are willing to put the entire society in the hands of a few judges? what if all those judges were conservatives? would you still feel that way?

What if there were no judges to keep states from banning firearms? Are you still willing to abolish the courts and their power to interpret the law?

apples and oranges.

judges are there to enforce the law, not to make it.

You dodged the question. You expressed a desire that judges not have the power to uphold the 2nd amendment.

nope. the 2nd is clear on gun rights, the 14th is not clear on gay marriage.

Lol, but if the judiciary didn't have the power of judicial review they couldn't make such a determination.

Who would strike down a state gun ban if the judges didn't have the power?

 

[Redfish]

actually he is correct.

He's wrong if the court rules otherwise.

so you are willing to put the entire society in the hands of a few judges? what if all those judges were conservatives? would you still feel that way?

What if there were no judges to keep states from banning firearms? Are you still willing to abolish the courts and their power to interpret the law?

apples and oranges.

judges are there to enforce the law, not to make it.

Seriously? You just said that judges "enforce" the law? Isn't that the Executive Branch's job?

no, the executive brance implements the law. the judicial enforces it.

 

[bodecea]

Why hasn't polygamy become legal in the states that now have same sex marriage?

there hasn't yet been a court challenge, but the ACLU is gearing up for one. Its coming, you asked for it

You don't seem to understand that gay rights are not contingent on any other people's rights issues. Gays either have a constitutional right to marry or they don't;

even IF it contributed to the polygamists' argument, which it doesn't, that is not sufficient cause to deny a specific separate to someone who is independently entitled to that right.

btw, by your reasoning, opposite sex civil marriage of ANY kind is the slippery slope to every other kind of civil marriage.

Gays would never get the right to civil marriage if heterosexuals hadn't gotten it in the first place.

Please show me the application for marriage license that has a box for sexual orientation.
If you cant then gays have the same right to marry as anyone else.

Wait.....you are offering "proof" a document that can be easily changed thru a retype?

like obama's birth certificate?

Ah...a Birther.

I was referring to the authorities changing a form they use. Which they do all the time.....unless you want to tell us that they use the SAME marriage license form they used over 70 years ago.

 

[Redfish]

so you are willing to put the entire society in the hands of a few judges? what if all those judges were conservatives? would you still feel that way?

What if there were no judges to keep states from banning firearms? Are you still willing to abolish the courts and their power to interpret the law?

apples and oranges.

judges are there to enforce the law, not to make it.

You dodged the question. You expressed a desire that judges not have the power to uphold the 2nd amendment.

nope. the 2nd is clear on gun rights, the 14th is not clear on gay marriage.

Lol, but if the judiciary didn't have the power of judicial review they couldn't make such a determination.

Who would strike down a state gun ban if the judges didn't have the power?

chicago has a gun ban, so does DC.

 

[bodecea]

He's wrong if the court rules otherwise.

so you are willing to put the entire society in the hands of a few judges? what if all those judges were conservatives? would you still feel that way?

What if there were no judges to keep states from banning firearms? Are you still willing to abolish the courts and their power to interpret the law?

apples and oranges.

judges are there to enforce the law, not to make it.

Seriously? You just said that judges "enforce" the law? Isn't that the Executive Branch's job?

no, the executive brance implements the law. the judicial enforces it.

OMIGOD!!!! You're still gonna go with "the judicial enforces it".

 

[Redfish]

so you are willing to put the entire society in the hands of a few judges? what if all those judges were conservatives? would you still feel that way?

What if there were no judges to keep states from banning firearms? Are you still willing to abolish the courts and their power to interpret the law?

apples and oranges.

judges are there to enforce the law, not to make it.

You dodged the question. You expressed a desire that judges not have the power to uphold the 2nd amendment.

nope. the 2nd is clear on gun rights, the 14th is not clear on gay marriage.

How clear is the 2nd on auto weapons? Tanks? Ammo? Licensing?

"right to bear arms" is clear. the word "marriage" appears nowhere in the 14th

 

[bodecea]

What if there were no judges to keep states from banning firearms? Are you still willing to abolish the courts and their power to interpret the law?

apples and oranges.

judges are there to enforce the law, not to make it.

You dodged the question. You expressed a desire that judges not have the power to uphold the 2nd amendment.

nope. the 2nd is clear on gun rights, the 14th is not clear on gay marriage.

Lol, but if the judiciary didn't have the power of judicial review they couldn't make such a determination.

Who would strike down a state gun ban if the judges didn't have the power?

chicago has a gun ban, so does DC.

DC's wasn't struck down?

 

[Redfish]

so you are willing to put the entire society in the hands of a few judges? what if all those judges were conservatives? would you still feel that way?

What if there were no judges to keep states from banning firearms? Are you still willing to abolish the courts and their power to interpret the law?

apples and oranges.

judges are there to enforce the law, not to make it.

Seriously? You just said that judges "enforce" the law? Isn't that the Executive Branch's job?

no, the executive brance implements the law. the judicial enforces it.

OMIGOD!!!! You're still gonna go with "the judicial enforces it".

Is DOJ judicial or executive?

 

[bodecea]

What if there were no judges to keep states from banning firearms? Are you still willing to abolish the courts and their power to interpret the law?

apples and oranges.

judges are there to enforce the law, not to make it.

You dodged the question. You expressed a desire that judges not have the power to uphold the 2nd amendment.

nope. the 2nd is clear on gun rights, the 14th is not clear on gay marriage.

How clear is the 2nd on auto weapons? Tanks? Ammo? Licensing?

"right to bear arms" is clear. the word "marriage" appears nowhere in the 14th

How clear is the 2nd on auto weapons? Tanks? Ammo? Licensing?

 

[bodecea]

What if there were no judges to keep states from banning firearms? Are you still willing to abolish the courts and their power to interpret the law?

apples and oranges.

judges are there to enforce the law, not to make it.

Seriously? You just said that judges "enforce" the law? Isn't that the Executive Branch's job?

no, the executive brance implements the law. the judicial enforces it.

OMIGOD!!!! You're still gonna go with "the judicial enforces it".

Is DOJ judicial or executive?

The Dept of Justice is Executive.....that is NOT the Judicial branch...that is the lawyers, the prosecutors to be exact.

All courts are in the Judicial Branch..................all of them.

 

[johnwk]

so you are willing to put the entire society in the hands of a few judges? what if all those judges were conservatives? would you still feel that way?

What if there were no judges to keep states from banning firearms? Are you still willing to abolish the courts and their power to interpret the law?

apples and oranges.

judges are there to enforce the law, not to make it.

You dodged the question. You expressed a desire that judges not have the power to uphold the 2nd amendment.

nope. the 2nd is clear on gun rights, the 14th is not clear on gay marriage.

How clear is the 2nd on auto weapons? Tanks? Ammo? Licensing?

It becomes very clear when we take the time to discover the intentions for which the Amendment was adopted as expressed by our forefathers. The documented legislative intent of our Constitution, as expressed by its framers and those who ratified it give context to the plain languages of our Constitution.


JWK




The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS'N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

 

[bodecea]

What if there were no judges to keep states from banning firearms? Are you still willing to abolish the courts and their power to interpret the law?

apples and oranges.

judges are there to enforce the law, not to make it.

You dodged the question. You expressed a desire that judges not have the power to uphold the 2nd amendment.

nope. the 2nd is clear on gun rights, the 14th is not clear on gay marriage.

How clear is the 2nd on auto weapons? Tanks? Ammo? Licensing?

"right to bear arms" is clear. the word "marriage" appears nowhere in the 14th

No...but saying that the government has to treat all citizens equally IS. And if the government treats one couple of law-abiding, tax-paying citizens by issuing them marriage licenses, they cannot deny that same treatment to other couples of law-abiding, tax-paying citizens based on gender.

 

[bodecea]

What if there were no judges to keep states from banning firearms? Are you still willing to abolish the courts and their power to interpret the law?

apples and oranges.

judges are there to enforce the law, not to make it.

You dodged the question. You expressed a desire that judges not have the power to uphold the 2nd amendment.

nope. the 2nd is clear on gun rights, the 14th is not clear on gay marriage.

How clear is the 2nd on auto weapons? Tanks? Ammo? Licensing?

It becomes very clear when we take the time to discover the intentions for which the Amendment was adopted as expressed by our forefathers. The documented legislative intent of our Constitution, as expressed by its framers and those who ratified it give context to the plain languages of our Constitution.


JWK




The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS'N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

IF the language of the Constitution is so plain as you claim, why even have a Judicial Branch?

Perhaps you can explain the "plainness" of the 2nd Amendment in relation to the ownership of automatic weapons, tanks, ammo, and the licensing thereof.