PratchettFan
Gold Member
- Jun 20, 2012
- 7,238
- 746
- 190
that doesnt make it smart.No actually it isn't a right to marry it is a privilege.I never cared if homosexuals got that piece of paper. I cared about how they went about it. This was the most stupid way. They fucked state rights and their own choices to get something they would have got eventually anyway.Yep:
"In Dred Scott v. Sandford (argued 1856 -- decided 1857), the Supreme Court ruled that Americans of African descent, whether free or slave, were not American citizens and could not sue in federal court. The Court also ruled that Congress lacked power to ban slavery in the U.S. territories. Finally, the Court declared that the rights of slaveowners were constitutionally protected by the Fifth Amendment because slaves were categorized as property." ~ The Supreme Court . The First Hundred Years . Landmark Cases . Dred Scott v. Sandford 1857 PBS
Which prompted the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments in 1865, directly overturning their decision as not inline with "we the peoples" opinion.
If anti-SSM folks think ya'll have the peeps, feel free to go for a constitutional amendment to overturn this SCOUS decision.
Which was their right.
It was their right to petition the courts for relief. That is the right of every American citizen.
From their perspective, it certainly does.
There has been much discussion on bakers and photographers being forced to provide services for SSM weddings. All of those cases relate to the enforcement of state laws. Are you equally passionate about supporting the state's right to impose that on its citizens? Would you consider it unwise for a baker to take their case to SCOTUS because it might infringe upon state's rights?