Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: BuckeyeTexan; All
Thank you for referencing that article BuckeyeTexan.

Please don't take anything in the following information personally BuckeyeTexan, but there are two reasons why patriots may not be able to reasonably predict the Supreme Court's decision on the constitutionality of gay marriage.

The first reason, unfortunately, is that activist justices may wrongly ignore the Constitution just like they ignored it when they gave the green light to Obamacare. More specifically, the Supreme Court ignored that the Founding States had made the 10th Amendment to clarify that the Constituton's silence about things like healthcare means that healthcare is a 10th Amendment-protected state power issue.

Otherwise, most patriots who have at least carefully read the Constitution should have already arrived at the following conclusion about the constitutionality of gay marriage.

Liberals are fighting California's ban on gay marriage because of the equal protection clause of California's corstitution. However, reason that PC interpretations of California's equal protection clause don't hold water is this. California's equal protection clause is expressly based on the Equal Protection Clause of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment. And the reason that liberals are wrong about their interpretation of both federal and state equal protection clauses is the following.

If liberals would make the effort to read Section 2 of 14A then they would know that 14A itself discriminates on the bases of sex, age and citizenship, regardless of their wide, PG interpretation of the Equal Protections Clause of Section 1.

14th Amendment, Section 2: Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States (emphasis added), or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

In fact, regardless of the 14A's Equal Protections Clause, the Supreme Court decided against Virginia Minor's claim that her citizenship gave her the right to vote as Minor v. Happersett shows.

So what 14A's Equal Protecions Clause does is this. When a state makes a law that discriminates on a given basis, a basis that the states have not protected with a constitutional amendment, 14A indicates that state must discriminate equally on that basis, no breaks for certain factions. And since gay marriage is not an express constitutional right, the states can prohibit gay marriage, such discrimination ultimately up to a state's legal majority voters.

Again, the loose canons concerning this issue are activist justices who are long overdue for impeachment imo.

22 posted on 03/23/2013 4:08:57 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Amendment10

No offense taken!

I hope they rule that gay marriage is a States’ Rights issue, but I don’t think we’re going to get a big win like that.


25 posted on 03/23/2013 4:23:33 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson