originally posted by: NavyDoc
I do wonder, with all due respect, if your thought process is consistent. If you are for legalizing gay marriage under the 14th,
Oh! OK. I see what you're saying. Let me be clear... I do not technically support legalizing gay marriage on a federal level. I support each state
making their marriage (and firearm) laws and I support federal intervention if those laws don't protect everyone in that state equally, according the
the 14th amendment.
Now, it's perfectly fine if a state wants to NOT offer marriage to its citizens at all
. That's their choice. But if they're going to have a
contract called "marriage", it should be offered equally to each and every citizen, with equality. They can make age laws and cousin laws, etc, but
they shouldn't be permitted to exclude a certain group within their restrictions.
Oklahoma briefly considered scrapping marriage altogether in their state to avoid having gay marriage and that would be FINE with me. As long as all
the citizens are treated equally.
Oklahoma Lawmakers Consider Preventing All Marriage
Same for second amendment issues. Each state makes it's laws, as long as they don't violate the Constitution. In other words, a state cannot
infringe on the people's right to keep and bear arms. A state cannot tell it's citizens, "You may not own firearms". A state could
which arms, how many, how they're regulated, age limits, etc. (just like marriage), but it must allow its citizens to own arms that would be useful
for guaranteeing a free state.
the equal opportunities act?
Do you mean The Equal Employment Opportunities Commission? I'm not sure which law you're talking about. But I do support federal anti-discrimination
laws. They are just an extension of the 14th amendment, ensuring that all people are treated equally, under the law. A business person, hiring or
serving the public is operating under the laws of the state AND of the country.
A business owner, for example, must operate according to the laws of the state in which they operate. Each state has its own employment
and Public Accommodation Laws (sorry I don't have a
link for that). For example, in Texas, LGBT is NOT included in their public accommodation laws, so a business owner can legally deny a gay couple from
buying donuts at his shop. In Colorado, the law protects LGBT, so to deny a couple because they're gay is against Colorado law.
I do not think this is the business of the feds if gays get married or not, and that is where I'm coming from.
Generally, I agree. But marriage is both a state and federal institution because most marriage benefits are federal. For example. if a gay couple gets
married in New Mexico (where it's legal) and moves to Ohio (where it's not) the federal government should still respect their marriage in New Mexico
and provide federal marriage benefits to them, regardless what the state does.
Considering the 9th and 10 amendments, whether a right (or restrictions on that right) is specifically mentioned in the Constitution is TOTALLY
irrelevant and doesn't give the mentioned right any more weight than those not enumerated.