Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Nope. Last I checked everyone had equal access to marriage.“The Court is making the preposterous assumption that the People of the United States somehow silently redefined marriage in 1868 when they ratified the 14th Amendment.”
Ignorant nonsense.
The 14th Amendment means exactly what it says, as originally intended by its Framers, and as correctly interpreted by the Supreme Court:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
And that includes marriage law, where for the state to seek to deny same-sex couples access to marriage (contract) law they're eligible to participate in, is in fact a violation of the original intent of the Amendment's Equal Protection Clause and its current jurisprudence.
Great news. Ted Cruz has the right idea even though he is not constitutionally eligible for Article 2 Section 1since he is Canadian born.
Ted Cruz to introduce constitutional amendment on gay marriage after Supreme Court ducks appeals Hot Air
Nope. Last I checked everyone had equal access to marriage.“The Court is making the preposterous assumption that the People of the United States somehow silently redefined marriage in 1868 when they ratified the 14th Amendment.”
Ignorant nonsense.
The 14th Amendment means exactly what it says, as originally intended by its Framers, and as correctly interpreted by the Supreme Court:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
And that includes marriage law, where for the state to seek to deny same-sex couples access to marriage (contract) law they're eligible to participate in, is in fact a violation of the original intent of the Amendment's Equal Protection Clause and its current jurisprudence.
What does it say when one unelected person strikes down the will of a vast majority in a state? That is tyranny. Nothing more.
Go, Ted.
You say marriage is not a right. The Supreme Court says its a fundamental right. On issues of the law and the protection of rights, the USSC is authoritative. You're not.
There are no rights of individuals at stake. Gays have exactly the same right to marry as anyone else. It's absurd.Nope. Last I checked everyone had equal access to marriage.“The Court is making the preposterous assumption that the People of the United States somehow silently redefined marriage in 1868 when they ratified the 14th Amendment.”
Ignorant nonsense.
The 14th Amendment means exactly what it says, as originally intended by its Framers, and as correctly interpreted by the Supreme Court:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
And that includes marriage law, where for the state to seek to deny same-sex couples access to marriage (contract) law they're eligible to participate in, is in fact a violation of the original intent of the Amendment's Equal Protection Clause and its current jurisprudence.
What does it say when one unelected person strikes down the will of a vast majority in a state? That is tyranny. Nothing more.
Go, Ted.
Protecting the rights of the individual from abrogation of them by the majority isn't tyranny. Its what the judiciary is supposed to do. The majority doesn't have the authority to vote away rights. They never have
Great news. Ted Cruz has the right idea even though he is not constitutionally eligible for Article 2 Section 1since he is Canadian born.
Ted Cruz to introduce constitutional amendment on gay marriage after Supreme Court ducks appeals Hot Air
The proposed amendment says nothing about same sex marriage. The amendment secures state's rights in defining marriage for themselves.
