Where does the 14th say anything about sexual preference? Does the 14th also require that poor people be paid the same as rich people? You called it a "slam dunk", and quite obviously, it isn't. Unless you have some slam dunk evidence that nobody else has figured out in the legal community.
I think the 10th applies. The "libertarian" thinks the 14th applies, but only if judges agree and apply it to sexual preference.
Denny, why not put the entire 10th Amendment, instead of just the beginning? The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Doesn't that imply "Any rules not mentioned on the federal level are up to the states to decide." Thus if the 14th says you should have equal rights, then a state can't overrule that. Whether or not the 14th actually says gay marriage is protected is another issue.
How do you define "equal rights"? The 14th was set up during the Reconstruction era, in part, to force states to give blacks a full vote and equal opportunity. Even with that, it took decades of legal battles to decide this basic right. I mean, to me, that was a "slam dunk", and it basically took 100 years to finally become federal law. I just found calling this Amendment One a "slam dunk" case based on the 14th to be very naive, that's all. Well, that, and I'm a big believer in states' rights over federal power.
BTW, same-sex marriage is already against the law in NC. Republicans think it's important enough that law needs to be enshrined in the state constitution.
Seems as if it's the citizens that will decide it, though. Such is life in a democracy. I'd just move.
The 14th applies to the States (state governments), not to private businesses or employers. It's also specific to the LAW of the states - "nor deny any Person equal protection of the LAWS." The law in question is the marriage law of a state. Obviously it is a slam dunk. By your logic, since the 14th doesn't say anything about race, a state could outlaw marriage between a chinese person and a vietnamese person.
I'm just going by the actual court history of applying the 14th to something as simple and automatic (to me, anyhow) as suffrage for blacks, or basic equal rights based on race. 100 years, yet you think it's a "slam dunk" to apply it to sexual preference and marriage? You do realize that the reason the 14th applies to race is because of a long and arduous legal battle, right? I found it to be a very naive and, frankly, ignorant comment, based on the long and difficult path other "slam dunks" have taken to have the 14th applied to them. Then again, you seem to think it's an easy win ... maybe you should try the case?
States have barred homosexual marriage for decades, yet our resident legal expert now says it's a "slam dunk" 14th Amendment issue. I'm sure nobody's every thought of that one before!! Embarrassing...
And in 2000, the 14th equal protection clause applied to the recount ballots in Florida. The equal protection clause doesn't say a thing about race. You do have a point to make or what?
The entire freaking point is that it didn't apply to race until the courts decided it applied to race, a process that took nearly 100 years.
