That was the impetus behind it, sure, but the amendment nevertheless refers to “any person”, with no exceptions. Over the following century and a half, we have come to accept that that’s what it does mean, and that that’s what it has to mean. Jurisprudence has been in alignment with that view as well, sometimes leading and sometimes following, as is natural.
Not to mention that it’s a strawman.
Which is why the only people claiming that that’s what the argument is are its opponents. The Constitutional right is not to gay marriage, but to equal protection.
That the writers of the 14th could even conceive of integrated classrooms and housing as a reasonable possibility is no less far-fetched, ya know.
I’ll ask you, then: If the SC hadn’t ruled that the 14th means what it says, would we or would we not have Jim Crow laws today? :dubious:
I begin to see your answer. And it’s not a good one, either.
Then where, in your world, should the right to equal protection of the laws be limited? What are some of the “new things” you foresee that frighten you so?
Not exactly. Connecticut passed civil unions by legislation (& unlike Vermont there was no court case obliging them too) and had it signed by a Republican governor. Full marriage equality was the result of a Supreme Court (of Connecticut) ruling, Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health, that civil unions weren’t enought and that same-sex couples had the same legal rights to the word “marriage” as opposite-sex couples.
It happens all the time that a law is passed that has implications that weren’t envisioned at the time. When those implications come up, you follow the law, and if the newly-apparent implications are intolerable, you change the law. It’s true that the drafters of the 14th Amendment probably didn’t anticipate gay marriage. And if one wants the law to reflect that intention, then the proper route would be a new Constitutional amendment counteracting part of the 14th, and explicitly prohibiting it. Absent that, the Unites States Constitution, as ratified by the people of this country, allows same-sex marriage.
You’re tossing around “law” and “constitutional amendment” as if they were the same thing. They’re not. I’m sure you know the difference, but not all the readers of this thread will.
There are certainly some mainstream schools of constitutional interpretation that would agree with your analysis. And there are some that would not. I’m not entirely sure, but I suspect your argument would not be upheld by the SCOTUS. And those guys do know a thing or two about the constitution.
Good thing for us that your selectively historical reading of the debates surrounding the 14th Amendment are ignored by the courts. It was written expansively and there’s ample evidence that some of the framers intended it to be expansive.
If we were to use your ludicrous approach to legal analysis, we’d have such absurdities as the Federal government being allowed to implement Jim Crow in DC and Federal territories. On the other hand, the next time someone argues that Federal affirmative action programs are unconstitutional, I can just point them to you, and I’m sure you will be happy to argue that Federal affirmative action programs are completely constitutional.
Talk about dishonest slight of hand. Your strawmen and misconstruing of the legal arguments in favor of SSM is the real culprit here.
No, it perverts your selective interpretation of the 14th Amendment.
We can’t recognize some rights because the universe might collapse into a black hole? This is basically what your argument is.
He was stating his personal opinion. An opinion that is not objectively true. You can believe that your interpretation of the 14th is the only valid one, but that isn’t true, either.
This is also oversimplifying the issue. The original intent of the authors of a law or constitutional provision is far less important than what they were able to get passed.
In what way does the 14th amendment so clearly permit same sex marriage that you can make a statement like this?
Its a matter of opinion at this point until it become s a matter of law. Frankly, if I were working on contingency I don’t know which side I would want to represent. Laws aren’t normally required to be narrowly drafted to fulfill a compelling state purpose unless youa re talking about protected classes and while some states recognize homosexuals as a protected class, theya re not recognized as such by federal law.
While a couple of Republicans seemed to have adopted the ‘government shouldn’t interfere in marriage’ argument - something liberals tried to sell them on for years - I don’t see any libertarians in the NY legislature.
Yes, I know that “Constitutional amendment” and “law” are not synonymous. But a Constitutional amendment is a law (albeit a very important sort of one), and should be construed according to the same principles as other laws. An amendment, like any other law, can see implications emerge which were not immediately apparent. And allowing some people to marry, but not others, is clearly a violation of equal protection.
I am willing to bet they found the notion of interracial marriage absurd too.
Do you think the Constitution conferred the right to marry inter-racially or do you think Loving v. Virginia overreached and it should have been left to the states to decide?
Here: “No State shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Any person. Equal protection of the laws. If straights have it, which they do, then there has to be a good reason to deny it to gays, which there isn’t any. How can that not be clear to you by now?
I’m going to have to differ with you a bit on that. The Constitution, while it does constitute law, is a bit more than that - it’s a statement of principles and purposes which underlie the law derived from it. To try to read it as such only when it suits the end you wish to reach, and narrowly, loophole-searchingly, contortedly when it’s inconvenient (as we so often see from the Second Amendment cultists) undermines its very reason for existing and its very power to get the people to respect it and their society.
I can’t tell if you are defending jtgain here or not, but jtgain is making the claim that his interpretation is the only possible interpretation, and all others are “perversions” of the 14th Amendment.
