We have a vote in North Carolina next week on a state constitutional amendment. The measure would define marriage in the state constitution as between one man and one woman, and would ban any other type of "domestic legal union" such as civil unions and domestic partnerships. It hasn't gotten much national attention but it has gotten much support from Christian, Tea Party and conservative groups. The debate has gotten pretty heated lately and it looks like the amendment may pass. It's really frustrating. This is why people refer to the republicans as "regressives". Some of the shit people have been saying/doing: pastor gives parents 'special dispensation' to use violence against gay kids Man shoots anti-amendment one sign
I am really surprised this issue hasn't gone to the Supreme Court. It seems like a slam dunk 14th amendment case to me.
I'm pro-gay marriage, but the 14th amendment does open up the federal government to other less-accepted marriages. Redefining equal protection as a sexual issue probably isn't the best way for the federal government to take even more power. I guess I'm just somebody who believes that the 10th Amendment still has a purpose, outside of obvious discrimination. An idea is, if you're gay and you disagree with your populace in North Carolina, move to a state that has a more accepting view on homosexual marriage. I'd think that a "libertarian" like you, Denny, would see an obvious 10th Amendment issue when you see one.
The 14th requires the states to treat its citizens equally. Allowing some to marry and denying that right to others is not equal treatment. Hence a slam dunk. The 14th is explicitly part of the constitution, so the 10th doesn't apply.
That's a very broad brush. Wouldn't the 14th also allow for a brother and sister to marry, or a father and daughter, or a grown man and a 12 year-old boy? Equal protection is a very broad brush, and thinking it's a "slam dunk" is foolish, IMO, because so many things can be put under that umbrella. It was created for obvious cases of discrimination, since as not giving some citizens a full vote, or allowing them to be the property of another human. The 14th Amendment arose out of the Reconstruction era. Saying it applies to marriage between gays, martians, or pederasts demeans the entire purpose of it. I'm sure you're smarter than every attorney in the US, though, in thinking that it's a "slam dunk". I don't think the federal government should have any input on marriage, whatsoever at all. It's a state issue, and the 10th Amendment makes that obvious. Oh, and you're not a Libertarian with this point of view. Furthest thing from it, actually.
I agree with this. I would think this is a states rights issue. Whichever side loses, then the minority will parade it to the State Supreme Court and see what they say.
We've gone over this 14th ammendment fallacy. In Denny's world, there would be coed shower rooms at the local swimming pool.
Denny is the most phony "Libertarian" I've seen. I've never met a Libertarian who believes in federal rights over states' rights. Hell, I've rarely met a Libertarian who even believes in states' right, outside of roads and police.
He's right, Denny. You've gone all the way over into Reasonable Human Being territory on this one. barfo
It's North Carolina. Shouldn't they worry about their high rate of incest and inbreeding before worrying about "unions" that DON'T produce even more retarded North Carolinans?
Libertarians believe the govt. should be according to the constitution. The 14th is the constitution, it's a great part of the constitution, and it simply trumps the 10th. I've never met a Libertarian who thinks the states should form their own army, navy, air force and marines, or that a state could tax the goods made by another, etc. Things that the constitution forbids. Carry on.
What part of "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution" do you not understand?
