I'd much rather have the states decide for themselves. Isn't that what the Constitution was all about?


The less government involvement, the better.

I believe in states' rights as well, so I don't understand that "grudgingly" part.

__________________

You are talking in circles. You say that the proof is given of class and not of class in the next breath. The constitution does not provide a class system, it is what the revolution was fought over. Feudalism. The 14th amendment does not trump the 10th. The Bill of Rights was written to protect the people from an over reaching government.

You are making the mistake of assuming one reference to "class" somehow means the exact same thing as another reference to "class"...



If you would listen and THINK about it, what I am describing is an effort to REMOVE classes of different stature.

Take for example the 14th amendment application regarding RACE.
By reviewing RACE in the 14th amendment application regarding a "class", WHICH RACE is elevated above another?
Answer? NONE!

It helps ensure ALL races are treated equally.

You are mistakenly assuming that just because the word "class" is there that some group is elevated above another.
An absurd assumption.

Perhaps you can explain WHICH GROUP is supposedly elevated above another in the constitutional application involving protections regarding "classes"...


The 14th amendment is a PART OF the application of the 10th.

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.

Ergo, when the constitution is EXPLICITLY amended to forbid a state the right to discriminate against rights without a legitimate state interest, then OBVIOUSLY that right is not "reserved" to the state!
In fact, such a power is obviously EXPLICITLY PROHIBITED to the state.

__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln

Hi
I completely agree with you in principle, but the word "race" has been knocked down by physical anthropologists and others. The conclusion is, "there is no race but the human race" (and maybe "the rat race". Now the word is Ethnicity.

When the anthropologists first started studying "race" at the beginning of the 20th century, they fully expected the category would work to divide people up by shade of skin and maybe woolly hair or blue eyes. But as they probed, it became more and more impossible to make clean categories of race, even without counting 1/2 breeds. So then during the 50's they decided race was not a good tool to sort out humans, they dropped it by the 60's and use ethnicity to describe differences in groups. It is all about genes, human genes, and how they get passed down, mixed, die off,(just the genes, not the people)

They even have a science of tracing genes back to various ethnic groups, so for around $100, you can have your genes traced back to their ethnic origins. It is far from complete, but some amazing and fascinating work has been done.

__________________
T M Scanlon http://ideas.ted.com/the-4-biggest-r...d-for-society/

As I already told you, I would be happy to discuss the merits of the Loving decision, in another thread, as case law and basic logic tell us it is not relevent to this discussion.

Wrong, what you did was offer your opinion on the case law. What you didn't do was offer any evidence, case law, documents or learned opinions to back your statements. Sorry Foundit, but you can't just disagree with something and hope it goes away. You'll notice that when I have disagreed with you or with case law you have presented I have backed my claim with judicial opinion, and the wording of the constitution.

Your the one who seems to want to change the topic to race, I've had to bring you back to relevance several times.

I already agreed that the 1st doesn't say that. "Freedom of religion" is a massive simplification and is actually a falsification since we are in no way free to practice religion in any way we want. If we did have "freedom of religion" I could claim to be an Aztec and perform human sacrifice.
the 1st ammendment doesn't say "freedom of religion" hence we don't have it. Likewise, the 14th doesn't even elude to a "legitimate states interest", hence any attempt to claim one is a misinterpretation.
You do understand that the "legitimate states interest" falacy causes rights to be denied not protected, right?

I have never claimed that the "legitimate states interest" claim wasn't supported by case law. However, unlike you, when I have disagreed with case law I have given an actual argument supported by evidence to back my disagreement. As is the case here. The best argument against the "legitimate states interest" claim is to simply read the 14th ammendment.

I'm begining to think you didn't even read my post. I never said anything to imply that I thought marriage cannot be recognized as a constitutional right. On the contrary, it can be if it is "retained by the people". Clearly same-sex marriage is not a right retained by the people of this country, as is evidenced by the plethora of votes and constitutional ammendments to the contrary.

For a right to "no longer exist" it would have to exist in the first place.

For any of this to be relevant you would have to establish that same-sex marriage is a right. A claim you have utterly failed to prove.

Correct, they specificly voted that a same-sex marriage wasn't a right.

I can, I just won't do it here since this is a same-sex marriage thread not a inter-racial marriage thread. Please try to stay on topic.

Wrong, by the claims I have put forth the 9th would mean exactly what it says.

Ah yes, a Foundit favorite, where he tries to predict the future instead of trying to argue something on its merits. The ninth ammendment clearly protects rights not enumerated in the constitution yet retained by the people. The people have clearly retained the right of a man and woman to marry, while not retaining the right to same-sex marriage.

You almost got it with this one. Marriage, as a generalization, is not a right. But, certain types of marriage have been retained by the people as a right.

Most of the rest of your post was irrelevant rehash or things I've already addressed above. Please try to restict your next post to relevant issues (hint: racial issues are not relevant).