It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: macman
originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: macman
The 14th amendment is most certainly valid. I didn't say a marriage license was a right. I said it was a privilege of being a U.S. citizen. You cannot remove a privilege from a group of citizens who haven't broken any laws removing their privileges.
There is no privilege to marry within any of that.
It is differed to the States, because the Constitution does not have a statement about it.
originally posted by: kaylaluv
Just because marriage licenses are deferred to the states doesn't mean that states can refuse to give them out to whomever they want.
originally posted by: kaylaluv
Interracial marriage licenses is a perfect example. States are no longer allowed to refuse to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple, because it was ruled as discrimination. If a state tries to legalize discrimination, the Federal government can use the Constitution to stop it. It's only a matter of time before the Supreme Court does this regarding gay marriage, but they will probably wait for most of the states to correct themselves. It will be the few remaining hold outs in the South that will be forced to comply, just like what happened with interracial marriage.
originally posted by: macman
Unless you are either a revisionist or think that the Constitution is a living document.
It states very clearly that items addressed are left to the state to decide, so long as they don't violate items addressed within it. Items like freedom of speech, the right to bear arms and so on.
Doing the right thing the wrong way is still wrong.
The Supreme Courts ruling goes against what is stated.
The States not allowing interracial marriage is/was wrong, but....it was the State's right to decide this, driven by the voters.
originally posted by: kaylaluv
Correct, like discriminating against a group by removing privileges afforded to other citizens.
Nope, the states don't have a right to legalize discrimination against a group of law-abiding citizens.
originally posted by: macman
You used the word privilege, which it is. A privilege is just that, and is not guaranteed.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States
...
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
originally posted by: sk0rpi0n
Your alibi doesnt answer the question I asked.
Just WHO said ''equal rights'' means gays can get married.?
originally posted by: sk0rpi0n
congrats you just earned your 'bigot' badge.
originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: macman
It goes against everything the Constitution stands for to allow a state to remove privileges from one group, while allowing those same privileges to another. This is the meaning of discrimination. Yes, privileges can be taken away, but if you are going to remove privileges, then remove them from all citizens. If you are going to allow privileges, then allow them to all citizens. Otherwise, you have discrimination.
originally posted by: Annee
originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: macman
It goes against everything the Constitution stands for to allow a state to remove privileges from one group, while allowing those same privileges to another. This is the meaning of discrimination. Yes, privileges can be taken away, but if you are going to remove privileges, then remove them from all citizens. If you are going to allow privileges, then allow them to all citizens. Otherwise, you have discrimination.
LGBT will, at some point in time, be Federally protected against discrimination.
After reading up on and following for years discriminatin discussions, I have learned social acceptance is a factor. I haven't decided if I personally think that is good or bad.
But, we know the acceptance in society of LGBT is moving rapidly in a positive direction. I don't think it will be much longer before LGBT is an official Federally protected class.
originally posted by: NavyDoc
originally posted by: Annee
originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: macman
It goes against everything the Constitution stands for to allow a state to remove privileges from one group, while allowing those same privileges to another. This is the meaning of discrimination. Yes, privileges can be taken away, but if you are going to remove privileges, then remove them from all citizens. If you are going to allow privileges, then allow them to all citizens. Otherwise, you have discrimination.
LGBT will, at some point in time, be Federally protected against discrimination.
After reading up on and following for years discriminatin discussions, I have learned social acceptance is a factor. I haven't decided if I personally think that is good or bad.
But, we know the acceptance in society of LGBT is moving rapidly in a positive direction. I don't think it will be much longer before LGBT is an official Federally protected class.
But it shouldn't be. There should be no federally protected classes at all. Every individual should have individual rights and responsibilities and no class of people should be protected more or less than others.
originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: macman
It goes against everything the Constitution stands for to allow a state to remove privileges from one group, while allowing those same privileges to another. This is the meaning of discrimination. Yes, privileges can be taken away, but if you are going to remove privileges, then remove them from all citizens. If you are going to allow privileges, then allow them to all citizens. Otherwise, you have discrimination.
originally posted by: NavyDoc
But it shouldn't be. There should be no federally protected classes at all. Every individual should have individual rights and responsibilities and no class of people should be protected more or less than others.
originally posted by: macman
originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: macman
It goes against everything the Constitution stands for to allow a state to remove privileges from one group, while allowing those same privileges to another. This is the meaning of discrimination. Yes, privileges can be taken away, but if you are going to remove privileges, then remove them from all citizens. If you are going to allow privileges, then allow them to all citizens. Otherwise, you have discrimination.
The Constitution does not grant the right or the privilege to marry. It is therefore left up the the State to decide. This is very clearly defined.
originally posted by: macman
And the Constitution does not grant privilege or right to marry.
Therefore, the State deciding does not go against the Constitution with it.
originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
originally posted by: NavyDoc
But it shouldn't be. There should be no federally protected classes at all. Every individual should have individual rights and responsibilities and no class of people should be protected more or less than others.
There shouldn't be discrimination. But there is. People (employers, realtors, business owners), if left to their own devices, will discriminate against others on the basis of race, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, etc. History has proven this.
originally posted by: Annee
originally posted by: NavyDoc
originally posted by: Annee
originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: macman
It goes against everything the Constitution stands for to allow a state to remove privileges from one group, while allowing those same privileges to another. This is the meaning of discrimination. Yes, privileges can be taken away, but if you are going to remove privileges, then remove them from all citizens. If you are going to allow privileges, then allow them to all citizens. Otherwise, you have discrimination.
LGBT will, at some point in time, be Federally protected against discrimination.
After reading up on and following for years discriminatin discussions, I have learned social acceptance is a factor. I haven't decided if I personally think that is good or bad.
But, we know the acceptance in society of LGBT is moving rapidly in a positive direction. I don't think it will be much longer before LGBT is an official Federally protected class.
But it shouldn't be. There should be no federally protected classes at all. Every individual should have individual rights and responsibilities and no class of people should be protected more or less than others.
My mother was disabled. A polio victim in the '51/52 epidemic.
The Federal Disability Act was 1986. That's 34 years of discrimination, as a child, I personally witnessed against my mother, for something she had no control over.
Go tell someone else it doesn't matter.
originally posted by: kaylaluv
originally posted by: macman
originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: macman
It goes against everything the Constitution stands for to allow a state to remove privileges from one group, while allowing those same privileges to another. This is the meaning of discrimination. Yes, privileges can be taken away, but if you are going to remove privileges, then remove them from all citizens. If you are going to allow privileges, then allow them to all citizens. Otherwise, you have discrimination.
The Constitution does not grant the right or the privilege to marry. It is therefore left up the the State to decide. This is very clearly defined.
It doesn't have to specify marriage -- it deals with any and all privileges, generally speaking.