History and Change

[richalisoviejo]

My moral views always differ from my legal views. I usually keep both separate. Political parties use the gay marriage as a hot-button political wedge issue to inflame their political base to help them win elections.

When Mr. and Mrs. Loving were convicted of the crime of entering into an interracial marriage and were forced to leave Virginia or face incarceration, the trial judge stated the following:

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages.

The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) another interesting read

Source

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=388&invol=1

As I’ve stated before in another thread:

Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment unambiguously states the following:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny toany person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Do you believe those persons who were morally against interracial marriage have a right to demand action by the State which results in the denial of equal protection of the laws to homosexuals?

This may be a hot button topic, don’t mean to start any arguments just curious of others point of view.

 

[Laura]

Marriage is between two people who love each other and want to commit to one another.
To me it has nothing to do with procreation. You can do that without being married, and I know lots of people who are married and it was not to have children. They have none.

To be a good lawyer i think you have to keep your morals and legal views seperate.
I may not like a certain law, but that doesnt mean I cant just let people break it. I have to enforce it.
It can be to the 'Spirit of the law and not nec the Letter of the law' however...talk, explain and give lots of warnings.

---

Laws were also made to be broken..
Ok.. well some made way back when... need to be changed.. and there are some really stupid ones out there.. Like you cant keep a aligator in your bathrub, you cant tie one to the firehydrant, cant eat peanuts in church, etc etc etc...
As for race... my sister would be in jail and my nephew wouldnt exist... AS for racial issues.. it isn't the color of the skin that should determine, its the actions.

 

[richalisoviejo]

My thoughts as well Laura. I’m very much heterosexual but have many gay friends.

The Constitution reins supreme!

The Constitution protects all individuals (homosexuals included) from the abuse of government power. The fact that it has taken 138 years of feet-dragging history after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment to enforce constitutional limitations on state governmental powers does not require the courts to abstain from enforcing the Constitution and ridding this country of the evils the Constitution sought to prohibit.

Those persons who are morally against same-sex marriages, like the persons before them who were morally against racially-mixed marriages, have no right to demand action by the State which results in the denial of equal protection of the laws to other individuals. The state's power to create and enforce marital rights must be exercised within the boundaries defined by the Fourteenth Amendment.

SHELLEY V. KRAEMER , 334 U.S. 1 (1948)

(The Constitution confers upon no individual the right to demand action by the State, which results in the denial of equal protection of the laws to other individuals. And it would appear beyond question that the power of the State to create and enforce property interests must be exercised within the boundaries defined by the Fourteenth Amendment);

The fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice.

Lawrence v. Texas an interesting read.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=02-102

Liberty, justice, and equal protection under the law are basic concepts that are not subject to the whims of majoritarian politics and elections. Rights protected by the Constitution against governmental usurpations must be vindicated by our courts. Some peoples desire to leave the determination of the individual rights of disfavored minorities in the hands of majoritarian politics flies in the face of the constitutional values upon which this country was founded.

If the moral majority of persons in this country may deprive homosexuals of their fundamental rights and equality within society based solely on their prejudices and moral disapproval, and if homosexuals cannot seek redress in our courts of law, then this is no longer America.

 

[Laura]

Im listening to Michael Savage and he doesnt compare gay to racist... he just hates the fact. He rants and raves Deviants...and i have to turn him off...I have an open mind and like to listen to people who think things far off from mine just to wonder.. It amazes me sometimes how people can be SO different in thier thoughts.. and Beliefs..
I dont know how you can get 12 people in a room and have them all agree on one thing.. Jury Duty.. I have it next week... Served on two. been called two other times... Sorry.. but I dont really like it..

 

[Candy]

The issue is and always has been whether or not this nation, it's people, it's government, it's leaders, it's laws and it's courts can live up to the promises made in the Declaration of Independence. As our history shows this has been a tremendous struggle for us and continues to be one. Over the years the Constitution has been ammended to allow the federal government to force states and local governments to live up to this national promise. The courts and various groups with interests other than those stated above have manipulated laws and their interpretations to fit their individual agendas. At some point polititians and Supreme Court Justices will grow a pair and either make the appropiate laws and/or interpretations (via court decisions) to fulfill the promise of The Declaration of Independence for all. However, even then there will have to be a continual struggle to maintain and tweak the ever changing needs of our republic, for vilgilance is the watch dog of democracy. In the words of a founding father, when asked after the constitutional convention what kind of government they had created "It's a republic if you can keep it" -B. Franklin.

 

[Candy]

I'm just posting to see if we can get some more comments or opinions on this subject. Candy

 

[richalisoviejo]

I'm just posting to see if we can get some more comments or opinions on this subject. Candy

Thanks It's always interesting in others point of views, some of us agree to disagree

Here is my arguement:

There is no dispute that this country has a LONG HISTORY of prejudice and bias that resulted in the unequal treatment of many classes of persons.

As a nation, we have a reprehensible history of depriving persons of their rights guaranteed by the Constitution. We have a reprehensible history of depriving persons of equal protection of the laws. That history is dripping with the discrimination, prejudice, animus, and oppression of disfavored classes of persons. Despite the existence of explicit constitutional protection, members of disfavored classes of persons have often been afraid to step forward to assert their rights to be treated as equal members of society.

What makes this country great is the fact that oppressed persons don't have to stand with their hats in their hands and plead like beggars to be treated with dignity and equality. They have the freedom and the right to petition the courts and to invoke the Fourteenth Amendment to put an end to state oppressions. Our 138 years of history since the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment have demonstrated to the people that fighting for their civil rights and for equality within society isn't a futile act anymore. We no longer sit complacently at the proverbial back of the bus and proclaim to those who do fight for their rights, "You ought to knowed better."

Those who came before the homosexuals as a class of persons paved the way and developed our jurisprudence under the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Homosexuals are persons protected by the Constitution from state deprivations of their life, liberty, and property interests. Homosexuals are persons entitled to equal protection under the law. The Fourteenth Amendment is not a meaningless provision in a meaningless document.

 

[Candy]

Unfortunately, our courts are too responsive to the political realities of the majority veiw, as our are lawmakers. It would be nice to see either entity stand up and recognize the promise our constitution and fully and finally define the extent of our civil liberties. Then of course the government itself would be able to act and properly enforce our civil rights. The lack of fortitude in all three branches of government on all three levels (federal, state and local) to do the right thing, the logical and the legal thing is one of grievious sorry to me. Stereotypes, prejudice and racism are diffcult at best to control and are part of the human condition (Thus 'will be with us always'). Discrimination on the other hand, especially in the public arena can and must be addressed. Same sex marriage must be allowed by all levels of government in this country, to do any less is dicriminatory and unconstitutional. "Give unto Ceasar what is Cesar's." Moral, religious and personal views must not be inflicited on others forceably, just as they cannot taken away forceably. In these areas we would do well to remmeber the concept of "free will". We must realize that "free will" is the basis of our political and economic systems, as the religion of the majority of Americans.

 

[richalisoviejo]

The fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice. Lawrence v. Texas Citation of Authority

Another interesting read;

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=02-102

It has always been said that we are a nation of laws, not of men. Our nation was founded on the concept of individual freedom and justice for all. We have a long history and tradition of oppressed groups coming forward to protest the infliction of state oppressions and to find redress of their grievances in our courts. Despite the fact that our courts have not effectively honored its duty in the past and allowed oppressions to take root, our constitutional values have eventually prevailed to unroot and prohibit those oppressions. We the people do not stand quietly and allow our rights to be subjected to the prejudicial or discriminatory whims of the electorate. Liberty depends on unfettered access to impartial courts to vindicate individual rights. Hamilton voiced this underlying principle of our constitutional republic during the ratification debates:

The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution. By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority; such, for instance, as that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex-post-facto laws, and the like. Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing.

 

[Candy]

I posted a response earlier but I guess I clicked the wrong button, sorry about that. Now if I can just remmeber what I wrote.

Justice for all, I am not sure if that was one of the top pirorities for the founding fathers, at least not in the we define it today. They were probably more concerned with the survival of national government, the prevention of mob rule, and the rights of property owners. That being said the establishment and organization of the court system was defined by Congress, the constitution only created it's existence and left much undefined. The Supreme Court itself took the power of judicial review by bodly asserting itself. They could do so again, yet in the past ten years they have let the several opportunities to do so pass. Why? Because of political ideaologies, that have become more important than interpretating the Constitution, the reasoning of the founding fathers and significance of the court's own history. When will our leaders find consensus in this purpose and provide the proper guidance regardless of political party membership. It is and always has been time to do the right thing. Perhaps, as you suggest it is time for "We the People"
to assert ourseleves into the fray for the common good.

Does anyone know where one can go to lend their support for Same Sex marriage on the basis of constituionality.

---

Sorry meant to write remember.

---

and priority sorry I should have read it again before it was posted.

 

[richalisoviejo]

The states can amend their Constitutions to abolish gay marriage but the US Supreme Court must interpret the 14th amendment.

Some people believe if you allow homosexuals to marry then who’s to stop someone from marrying their dog? The 14th Amendment refers to persons, which animals and plants are not.