[Bryan]

Originally Posted by nolidad

It all depends where you want to draw the line. NAMBLA with sexologists Masters and JOhnson have petitioned congress to decriminalize consensual pedophilia. they say that this is discriminatory and denying the men and 10-13 year olds the right to their freedoms. Do you agree with them? After all courts have ruled that a 12 year old has a right to an abortion w/o parental interference so they have gone after that decision to apply to their "rights".

no i don't, because children do not have the capacity to truly understand the consequences that come from sexual relationships and it is very easy for an adult to take advantage of a child. We're talking about consenting adults here, to bring up pedophilia as a reason to not allow same sex marriage is absurd.

Marriage is a right that is retained by the people (see the 9th amendment). Even if it isn't a right, we're still left with lack of equal protection under the law. Heterosexual couples have access to the protection of the law in the form of a state recognized marriage. Homosexual couples do not.

Do you think we should be able to deny driver's licenses to homosexuals. What about jobs, should I be able to discriminate based on someone's sexual orientation? What about loans for homes?

[tlj009]

the 14th amendment says nothing about race.

And, of course, you know that the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments were all passed around the same time concerning black rights. Anyway, you haven't made an argument.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by tlj009

Yes, they can. But they tend to overstep their power in many cases. Maybe Congress or the President should remind them that the Judicial Branch has absolutely no power except to give opinions. Opinions that can easily be ignored by the other branches of government.

You mean like the opinion that tortue was illegal or that the president had to follow the bill of rights?

Anyway, applying free speech to the Internet may be an example of judges applying an old law to a new situation. Applying marriage to the "equal rights clause" (I assume the 14th amendment) is overstepping their power. The 14th amendment simply was not meant to allow homosexuals the right to marry. So it is not the judges responsibility to change it regardless of whether or not the situation for homosexuals has changed.

"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"

So is marriage not a privilege, or are gay people not citizens?

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by Bryan

What about jobs, should I be able to discriminate based on someone's sexual orientation?

Yes.

Or any other matter.

To which end, I as another private citizen have the right to boycott you. But with the criss-crossing domain of private & public, such a thing is unfeasible.

I believe you and I are on the same page, however. Not sure why Christians would want the State to control who is married and who is not.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

To which end, I as another private citizen have the right to boycott you. But with the criss-crossing domain of private & public, such a thing is unfeasible.

So as long as you are a minority, I can ignore your boycot.

If every food store stopped selling to Christians, a lot of them would die off making their boycott irrellevent.

[Bryan]

Originally Posted by tlj009

And, of course, you know that the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments were all passed around the same time concerning black rights. Anyway, you haven't made an argument.

but that's irrelevant. the circumstances surrounding the passage of the bill does not change the meaning of the bill. If they intended it to only apply to race, they would have stated as such. Since they didn't, that wasn't their intention. The 14th amendment is not limited in scope to only race, if it were, then it would be constitutional to pass laws discriminating against handicapped people or short people or fat people. It is unlawful for government to pass any laws that discriminate against any group of people. The only time it is acceptable is when it to protect other people's rights to life, liberty and property.

[normajean777]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

So as long as you are a minority, I can ignore your boycot.

If every food store stopped selling to Christians, a lot of them would die off making their boycott irrellevent.

Which would be fine except that it is less on every food stores political agenda to kill all Christians than it is to make money off of anyone that it can. Thus if every existing store stopped selling to Christians, a new store would pop up because they can make a much larger profit because of the niche. This is the beauty of capitalism mixed with free choice.

Also its the same reason why the business I work for picks a portion of its clients. For example it won't deal for clients who want insurance to pay their bills.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by normajean777

Which would be fine except that it is less on every food stores political agenda to kill all Christians than it is to make money off of anyone that it can. Thus if every existing store stopped selling to Christians, a new store would pop up because they can make a much larger profit because of the niche. This is the beauty of capitalism mixed with free choice.

Ahh yes, the complete faith that capitalism will solve all... much like it did for the Native Americans, or many other minorities. [/sarcasam]

What when they didn't?

[tlj009]

"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"

So is marriage not a privilege, or are gay people not citizens?

I don't think marriage is a privilege but beyond that I think that you are adding to the amendment. If you apply your quote literally, then criminals have all the same rights that everyone else has. If marriage was a unlimited right, then polygamy wouldn't be outlawed and a 40 year old could marry a 15 year old. So technicalities aside, the amendment was not passed for the purpose of giving homosexuals the right to marry.

[tlj009]

but that's irrelevant. the circumstances surrounding the passage of the bill does not change the meaning of the bill. If they intended it to only apply to race, they would have stated as such. Since they didn't, that wasn't their intention. The 14th amendment is not limited in scope to only race, if it were, then it would be constitutional to pass laws discriminating against handicapped people or short people or fat people. It is unlawful for government to pass any laws that discriminate against any group of people. The only time it is acceptable is when it to protect other people's rights to life, liberty and property.

That is insane. The circumstances surrounding the passage of the bill defines the meaning of the bill. This is the reason that I don't like lawyers. Lawyers find loopholes or technicalities instead of determining the intent of the law. It is precisely this attitude that has taken the power from the States and given it to the Federal Government. Adding to the law beyond its original intent is taking the power from the people and giving it to judges.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by tlj009

I don't think marriage is a privilege but beyond that I think that you are adding to the amendment. If you apply your quote literally, then criminals have all the same rights that everyone else has. If marriage was a unlimited right, then polygamy wouldn't be outlawed and a 40 year old could marry a 15 year old. So technicalities aside, the amendment was not passed for the purpose of giving homosexuals the right to marry.

But polygamy isn't given to anyone, 40 year olds can marry 15 year olds in many states, and the 14th explcitly covers criminals in the sentance after the one I quoted.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by tlj009

That is insane. The circumstances surrounding the passage of the bill defines the meaning of the bill. This is the reason that I don't like lawyers. Lawyers find loopholes or technicalities instead of determining the intent of the law. It is precisely this attitude that has taken the power from the States and given it to the Federal Government. Adding to the law beyond its original intent is taking the power from the people and giving it to judges.

Sounds like subjectivist law to me.

Whose intent should we take and how should we know it? Do you know with certainty the unstated intent of every congressman, both federal and state, who voted for the 14th ammendment?

The 19th ammendment was radified by the exact minimum number of states required, and in one state by a single vote. Do you know what his reason was?

Or, perhaps, we could take the laws for what they say. If the intent was to merely cover racism, why wasn't race mentioned at all? If aliens appear tomorrow, and some become US citizens, are you saying that the 14th ammendment protection for US citizens wouldn't apply to citizens who weren't human because they weren't thought of when it was written? Neither were j-walking laws... we will have to reissue every law, often with the exact same wording.

[tlj009]

But polygamy isn't given to anyone,

Homosexual marriage isn't given to anyone. So what is the difference?

40 year olds can marry 15 year olds in many states

Which makes it a State issue and not one that is protected by the 14th Amendment.

and the 14th explcitly covers criminals in the sentance after the one I quoted.

Which 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."

So the State can't deprive a person of their rights without due process. But after conviction, they lose many of their rights. The phrase was simply to ensure that they have due process. And since homosexuality was outlawed in many States at the time, I don't believe that it even crossed anyone's mind at the time that this would strike down that law. This amendment was passed in 1868. Is there any reason at all to believe that they intended this to cover homosexuals as a separate group at a time when homosexual activity was outlawed?

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by tlj009

Homosexual marriage isn't given to anyone. So what is the difference?

replace "homosexual" with "Christian" or "Black" and you tell me.

Which makes it a State issue and not one that is protected by the 14th Amendment.

The constitution has never been interpreted to remove either age of reason/consent, nor the possability of someone being impared beyond the ability to make reasonable choices.

So the State can't deprive a person of their rights without due process. But after conviction, they lose many of their rights. The phrase was simply to ensure that they have due process. And since homosexuality was outlawed in many States at the time, I don't believe that it even crossed anyone's mind at the time that this would strike down that law.

If that were the case, the 14th would fail to affect Jim Crow laws which similarly denied blacks of many rights based on state law.

The exception allows for individuals to be deprived of their rights through due process (removing a child from parents determined unfit, or removing freedom from someone convicted of a crime, or removing the right to protection from search an seizure with cause and a warrant.) It has never been interpreted to allow the removal of the rights of a group of people.

This amendment was passed in 1868. Is there any reason at all to believe that they intended this to cover homosexuals as a separate group at a time when homosexual activity was outlawed?

I don't believe it was intended to cover anyone as a seperate group. (It was also passed at a time of Jim Crowe laws). The entire point of the ammendment seems to be that you cannot treat citizens differently from one another.

My proof? The law they actually passed.

[tlj009]

Sounds like subjectivist law to me.

Whose intent should we take and how should we know it? Do you know with certainty the unstated intent of every congressman, both federal and state, who voted for the 14th ammendment?

The 19th ammendment was radified by the exact minimum number of states required, and in one state by a single vote. Do you know what his reason was?

Or, perhaps, we could take the laws for what they say. If the intent was to merely cover racism, why wasn't race mentioned at all? If aliens appear tomorrow, and some become US citizens, are you saying that the 14th ammendment protection for US citizens wouldn't apply to citizens who weren't human because they weren't thought of when it was written? Neither were j-walking laws... we will have to reissue every law, often with the exact same wording.

I know what the intent wasn't seeing as it took over 100 years for this situation to even come up.