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

[NYcarbineer]

This evening Bill O’Reilly and Andrea Tantaros with respect to “gay” [homosexual] marriages, suggested the 14th Amendment requires the equal protection of the law. What the 14th Amendment actually requires is, whatever law a state adopts with regard to a state issued marriage license, "no person" [singular] may be denied the equal protection of that law. But if a state makes a license law which makes a distinction based upon race, color or former condition of slavery, the expressed legislative intent of the 14th Amendment was to prohibit such a distinction. There is nothing in the 14th Amendment’s language or debates of the 39th Congress which gave birth to the 14th Amendment that it was intended to forbid a State to make distinctions in law based upon sex. In fact, the Equal Rights Amendment which would have forbidden distinctions based upon sex was specifically rejected and one of the reasons for its rejection was because if it were adopted it would lead to same sex marriages.

And what does the 14th Amendment actually state? It states “ ...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” All that declares is, whatever laws a state passes any person is to get the equal protection of those laws. It mentions nothing about forbidding state laws which make distinctions based upon sex!

So, whatever Bill O’Reilly’s or Andrea Tantaros’ personal views are with respect to an alleged injustice or fairness of a State requiring applicants for a state issued marriage license to consist of one male and one female, they are totally irrelevant to enforcing both the text and legislative intent of the 14th Amendment! We are a nation governed by the rule of a written Constitution and not by the whims and fancies of judges, Justices or the personal views of individuals.

And now, with regard to the documented legislative intent of the 14th Amendment, it was summarized as follows by one of its supporters.


“Its whole effect is not to confer or regulate rights, but to require that whatever of these enumerated rights and obligations are imposed by State laws shall be for and upon all citizens alike without distinctions based on race or former condition of slavery…It permits the States to say that the wife may not testify, sue or contract. It makes no law as to this. Its whole effect is to require that whatever rights as to each of the enumerated civil (not political) matters the States may confer upon one race or color of the citizens shall be held by all races in equality…It does not prohibit you from discriminating between citizens of the same race, or of different races, as to what their rights to testify, to inherit &c. shall be. But if you do discriminate, it must not be on account of race, color or former conditions of slavery. That is all. If you permit a white man who is an infidel to testify, so you must a colored infidel. Self-evidently this is the whole effect of this first section. It secures-not to all citizens, but to all races as races who are citizens- equality of protection in those enumerated civil rights which the States may deem proper to confer upon any race.” ___ SEE: Rep. Shellabarger, Cong. Globe, 1866, page 1293

So tell us Mr. O’Reilly, will you clarify for your listening audience exactly what the text of the 14th Amendment states in its plan language, and its legislative intent as expressed during its framing which gives context to its language? I ask you this because the most fundamental rule of constitutional construction is stated as follows:

The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.-- numerous citations omitted__ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.

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

Are you really arguing that only men have the protected right to bear arms?

 

[bodecea]

anyone else tired of hearing about homosexual marrying, bill O'Reilly and Fox news?

If you are tired of it, why are you on this thread?

Stephanie likes to slither in, announce how bored she is by a thread, then slither out again.

 

[NYcarbineer]

anyone else tired of hearing about homosexual marrying, bill O'Reilly and Fox news?

If you are tired of it, why are you on this thread?

She needed a place to sit down.

 

[80zephyr]

All the problems in the world and the left thinks homo marriage is the most important issue. Get pretend married and shut the hell up already

It will all be over in a few months and then people will forget that there was a time people actually opposed gay marriage

What were they thinking?

Like abortion, right?

Mark

 

[bodecea]

It will all be over in a few months and then people will forget that there was a time people actually opposed gay marriage

What were they thinking?

I'll never accept they are "married", with that said let them pretend, just keep it away from our children, life is hard enough without a bunch of confused misfits mucking it up even more

Just like I'll never accept that you are "married. But you can pretend...just keep it away from our children. Life is hard enough without a bunch of confused haters mucking it up even more.

Raising a kid with two moms isn't confusing to them? I call bull.

More confusing than raising with one mom?

Yep

And...you know this how? How many children do you know with two moms?

 

[Redfish]

All the problems in the world and the left thinks homo marriage is the most important issue. Get pretend married and shut the hell up already

It will all be over in a few months and then people will forget that there was a time people actually opposed gay marriage

What were they thinking?

I'll never accept they are "married", with that said let them pretend, just keep it away from our children, life is hard enough without a bunch of confused misfits mucking it up even more

That's OK. Nobody says you have to like it, You just have to do it. Give everybody the same rights.

everybody has the same rights. gay marriage is NOT a right.

BTW. Andrea is HOT. (just trying to stir up the lesbians)

Straight marriage isn't a right then either.

true. there is not a single mention of marriage in the constitution, the bill of rights, or any of our founding documents.

if you want marriage of any type to be a right, the pass a constitutional amendment.

if you do such an amendment, would you prohibit multiple marriages? if so, on what basis?

 

[Jarhead]

Sad isn't it?

There was a time when Government actually paid attention to your fag hating rants

Grow up already. Do you think screaming "fag" makes anyone take you serious? It doesn't

Doesn't seem to work for you anymore.....society just ignores you

Homosexual marriage is all but a done deal. No amount of hatred on your part is going to change that

Gays will marry, have families and live happy and productive lives
Just like any other couple

Good luck having children as normal people do...."like any other couple"

Lots of normal people have IVF or adopt.

RW said that gay couples have children "like normal people".

RW sees gays as abnormal. Interesting.

However, to his point......gay couples are unable to conceive children as heterosexual couples, seeing as an egg and a sperm is necessary....but I know as a fact that gay couples rear their children no differently than heterosexual couples. Other than that extra book in the bookcase....you know...."I Have Two Mommies"....gay couples pretty much have the same healthy loving household that heterosexual couples have.

 

[BULLDOG]

The government goes by the law. You can decide for yourself if you think it is normal.

It does?

Isnt there a law that's says undocumented immigrants are deemed as illegal and therefore are to be deported in a timely manner?

Sure, but since it is impossible to deport 11 million people, it is reasonable and legal to prioritize which of those 11 million to concentrate on first.

and it is to be as per the will of the people...not the belief of one man.....not when it comes to an issue where the country is so divided on....

It should concern you for one day there will be a conservative president...and the precedent has been set.

And yes, it concerns me what a conservative president may do as well.

Scary shit. Stop defending it.

I'm unaware of any ideas offered by anyone else as far as prioritization of deportations. I'm guessing you think it is just as important to export families that are living peacefully and productively as it is to deport the criminals and drug dealers. I, and according to surveys, most of the rest of the country, think the bad guys should go first. That's far from the opinion of one man.

I don't disagree with you.
But that is not the debate. You simply opted to make something that is agreed upon by all as the debate. I don't blame you. It is easy to win a debate like that.
The debate is about what we are doing with those that broke the law to get in, but have not broken the law since....but still have broken the law once without consequences.
And the issue associated with the expense, aggravation, and sever inconvenience suffered by those that did it legally.
It is a legitimate debate where there is no easy answer....and no "one man or woman" should have the right to make that decision.

Debate the real debate. Not the spin. We should all be telling our reps to stop the spin. It is spilling over into the electorate...and it creates serious hate.

OK. With limited resources, what do you propose to do? Is it more important to get the worst bad guys deported or to just get rid of whoever is easy to catch? Spending time with harmless families reduces the time spent on bad guys. What is your plan?

 

[Jarhead]

It will all be over in a few months and then people will forget that there was a time people actually opposed gay marriage

What were they thinking?

I'll never accept they are "married", with that said let them pretend, just keep it away from our children, life is hard enough without a bunch of confused misfits mucking it up even more

That's OK. Nobody says you have to like it, You just have to do it. Give everybody the same rights.

everybody has the same rights. gay marriage is NOT a right.

BTW. Andrea is HOT. (just trying to stir up the lesbians)

Straight marriage isn't a right then either.

true. there is not a single mention of marriage in the constitution, the bill of rights, or any of our founding documents.

if you want marriage of any type to be a right, the pass a constitutional amendment.

if you do such an amendment, would you prohibit multiple marriages? if so, on what basis?

There is no basis. Marriage and the way one marries should be an individuals decision....I have no issue with heterosexual marriage, homosexual marriage, or multiple spouse marriages.

 

[Iceweasel]

So how do you explain the following quotes?

My quote was that they usually back it up. And they do. Plus they bring on guests quite often, including those from opposite sides. I often don't hear the MSM address some of those issues. That's what pisses libs off. They can't have total control over news dissemination.

Your complete quote was

"They usually back it up. That's what pisses you commies off. Go FOX!"

Quit lying. It's too easy to expose your ignorance.

wtf is wrong with you? You're exposing your 2 digit IQ.

 

[bodecea]

All the problems in the world and the left thinks homo marriage is the most important issue. Get pretend married and shut the hell up already

It will all be over in a few months and then people will forget that there was a time people actually opposed gay marriage

What were they thinking?

Like abortion, right?

Mark

Yeah. Thank goodness that Republican Congress and all those Republican Presidents got rid of that.

 

[Jarhead]

It does?

Isnt there a law that's says undocumented immigrants are deemed as illegal and therefore are to be deported in a timely manner?

Sure, but since it is impossible to deport 11 million people, it is reasonable and legal to prioritize which of those 11 million to concentrate on first.

and it is to be as per the will of the people...not the belief of one man.....not when it comes to an issue where the country is so divided on....

It should concern you for one day there will be a conservative president...and the precedent has been set.

And yes, it concerns me what a conservative president may do as well.

Scary shit. Stop defending it.

I'm unaware of any ideas offered by anyone else as far as prioritization of deportations. I'm guessing you think it is just as important to export families that are living peacefully and productively as it is to deport the criminals and drug dealers. I, and according to surveys, most of the rest of the country, think the bad guys should go first. That's far from the opinion of one man.

I don't disagree with you.
But that is not the debate. You simply opted to make something that is agreed upon by all as the debate. I don't blame you. It is easy to win a debate like that.
The debate is about what we are doing with those that broke the law to get in, but have not broken the law since....but still have broken the law once without consequences.
And the issue associated with the expense, aggravation, and sever inconvenience suffered by those that did it legally.
It is a legitimate debate where there is no easy answer....and no "one man or woman" should have the right to make that decision.

Debate the real debate. Not the spin. We should all be telling our reps to stop the spin. It is spilling over into the electorate...and it creates serious hate.

OK. With limited resources, what do you propose to do? Is it more important to get the worst bad guys deported or to just get rid of whoever is easy to catch? Spending time with harmless families reduces the time spent on bad guys. What is your plan?

Stop debating want is not the debate.
I get it. Get rid of the bad guys first. I agree.
What do we do with the rest? That is the debate. I have no answer. It can be found with honest debate.

 

[Iceweasel]

RW sees gays as abnormal. Interesting.

However, to his point......gay couples are unable to conceive children as heterosexual couples, seeing as an egg and a sperm is necessary....but I know as a fact that gay couples rear their children no differently than heterosexual couples. Other than that extra book in the bookcase....you know...."I Have Two Mommies"....gay couples pretty much have the same healthy loving household that heterosexual couples have.

It isn't normal. Gays didn't even get here unless heterosexuals got together. Men and women are different in the normal world and bring different things to the table. To deny gender traits in mammals means you need to go back to grade school and start over.

 

[rightwinger]

It will all be over in a few months and then people will forget that there was a time people actually opposed gay marriage

What were they thinking?

I'll never accept they are "married", with that said let them pretend, just keep it away from our children, life is hard enough without a bunch of confused misfits mucking it up even more

That's OK. Nobody says you have to like it, You just have to do it. Give everybody the same rights.

everybody has the same rights. gay marriage is NOT a right.

BTW. Andrea is HOT. (just trying to stir up the lesbians)

Straight marriage isn't a right then either.

true. there is not a single mention of marriage in the constitution, the bill of rights, or any of our founding documents.

if you want marriage of any type to be a right, the pass a constitutional amendment.

if you do such an amendment, would you prohibit multiple marriages? if so, on what basis?

But they do tend to speak about equal protection of the laws

Kind of covers everything

 

[Iceweasel]

All the problems in the world and the left thinks homo marriage is the most important issue. Get pretend married and shut the hell up already

It will all be over in a few months and then people will forget that there was a time people actually opposed gay marriage

What were they thinking?

I'll never accept they are "married", with that said let them pretend, just keep it away from our children, life is hard enough without a bunch of confused misfits mucking it up even more

Just like I'll never accept that you are "married. But you can pretend...just keep it away from our children. Life is hard enough without a bunch of confused haters mucking it up even more.

Raising a kid with two moms isn't confusing to them? I call bull.

How would it be confusing? Our daughter isn't the least confused. But I would expect that the children of haters get some very mixed messages and that sure can be confusing.

Exactly, you proved my point. Disagreement with you equals hate. Teaching that to children cripples them for life.

 

[Jarhead]

RW sees gays as abnormal. Interesting.

However, to his point......gay couples are unable to conceive children as heterosexual couples, seeing as an egg and a sperm is necessary....but I know as a fact that gay couples rear their children no differently than heterosexual couples. Other than that extra book in the bookcase....you know...."I Have Two Mommies"....gay couples pretty much have the same healthy loving household that heterosexual couples have.

It isn't normal. Gays didn't even get here unless heterosexuals got together. Men and women are different in the normal world and bring different things to the table. To deny gender traits in mammals means you need to go back to grade school and start over.

How do you know that the first man had sexual relations with a woman by instinct, but found that young stud second man more desirable?

 

[Iceweasel]

RW sees gays as abnormal. Interesting.

However, to his point......gay couples are unable to conceive children as heterosexual couples, seeing as an egg and a sperm is necessary....but I know as a fact that gay couples rear their children no differently than heterosexual couples. Other than that extra book in the bookcase....you know...."I Have Two Mommies"....gay couples pretty much have the same healthy loving household that heterosexual couples have.

It isn't normal. Gays didn't even get here unless heterosexuals got together. Men and women are different in the normal world and bring different things to the table. To deny gender traits in mammals means you need to go back to grade school and start over.

How do you know that the first man had sexual relations with a woman by instinct, but found that young stud second man more desirable?

Well, the instinct would make it normal, the alternative adventurous.

 

[bodecea]

It will all be over in a few months and then people will forget that there was a time people actually opposed gay marriage

What were they thinking?

I'll never accept they are "married", with that said let them pretend, just keep it away from our children, life is hard enough without a bunch of confused misfits mucking it up even more

Just like I'll never accept that you are "married. But you can pretend...just keep it away from our children. Life is hard enough without a bunch of confused haters mucking it up even more.

Raising a kid with two moms isn't confusing to them? I call bull.

How would it be confusing? Our daughter isn't the least confused. But I would expect that the children of haters get some very mixed messages and that sure can be confusing.

Exactly, you proved my point. Disagreement with you equals hate. Teaching that to children cripples them for life.

So.....are you asserting that SassyIrishLass does not hate? Yes or no.

Oh, and I don't teach my daughter that....she has eyes and she makes assessments on her own as to who is messed up with hate or not.

 

[Redfish]

I'll never accept they are "married", with that said let them pretend, just keep it away from our children, life is hard enough without a bunch of confused misfits mucking it up even more

That's OK. Nobody says you have to like it, You just have to do it. Give everybody the same rights.

everybody has the same rights. gay marriage is NOT a right.

BTW. Andrea is HOT. (just trying to stir up the lesbians)

Straight marriage isn't a right then either.

true. there is not a single mention of marriage in the constitution, the bill of rights, or any of our founding documents.

if you want marriage of any type to be a right, the pass a constitutional amendment.

if you do such an amendment, would you prohibit multiple marriages? if so, on what basis?

There is no basis. Marriage and the way one marries should be an individuals decision....I have no issue with heterosexual marriage, homosexual marriage, or multiple spouse marriages.

so you are ok with multiple person marriages and filling up our courts with very very complex divorce cases?

can you imagine the divorce of a 5 person marriage where 3 want one person divorced out of the marriage and one wants him/her to stay. multiple kids from multiple couplings, 7 or 8 cars, 401K accounts.

come on, Think

 

[Redfish]

I'll never accept they are "married", with that said let them pretend, just keep it away from our children, life is hard enough without a bunch of confused misfits mucking it up even more

That's OK. Nobody says you have to like it, You just have to do it. Give everybody the same rights.

everybody has the same rights. gay marriage is NOT a right.

BTW. Andrea is HOT. (just trying to stir up the lesbians)

Straight marriage isn't a right then either.

true. there is not a single mention of marriage in the constitution, the bill of rights, or any of our founding documents.

if you want marriage of any type to be a right, the pass a constitutional amendment.

if you do such an amendment, would you prohibit multiple marriages? if so, on what basis?

But they do tend to speak about equal protection of the laws

Kind of covers everything

gays have equal protection under the laws. which laws do not apply to gays?

gay men can marry, gay women can marry.

two man, straight or gay, not a marriage
two women, straight or gay, not a marriage.