Czernobog
Gold Member
So says you. However, since we already know from Loving v Virginia that the 14th most assuredly applies to marriage, and the courts have, thus far, ruled contrary to your statement, that your opinion of what the 14th does, and does not, apply to is erroneous.So, you're saying that the law was changed, like with the 14th amendment, in order to expand civil liberties to people that had previously been denied those liberties? No? Then you're right. We wouldn't want to change those laws in the way that you are attempting to change them, because those changes would directly conflict with the rights guaranteed in the Constitution.What you are "sure' of carries exactly zero legal weight. The fact still remains that the law said what it said, until you moralists shat yourselves over the fact that "the homos" were taking advantage of the damn law as if they were "real people", and ran off to your state congresses to have the laws altered to fit your personal moral opinions.The difference is that you are not referring to writing new law to accommodate for technology that did not exist 100 years ago. You are talking about changing existing law in order to support your continued discrimination that certainly did exist 100 years ago.
Homosexuality was considered a perversion back when the marriage laws were written. I'm sure the lawmakers never thought perverts would ever consider wanting to marry. They are, after all quite different than opposite sex couples.
Certain states realized the mistake and voted on defining it.
I am sure you realize this.
Correct?
Slavery should still be legal?
Wouldn't want to change a law.
Specially not those left to the state aye?
You deflect, the 14th was never intended to address same sex marriage. Homosexuals were considered mentally challenged, perverted.