'@TheChief'
"2) You've shown utter disgust and contempt for it. That view subscribe to one interpretation of the Constitution. I find it too broadly encompassing for safety's sake. I stand by my statement it's a matter best left to state legislative bodies."
Congratulations on being hypocrite of the year! You lambasted Jacob earlier on picking and choosing, and here we see that actually that is you!
Because you are very literally choosing to not regard the 14th Amendment because apparently its..."too broadly encompassing for safety's sake". Whatever the heck that means. The 14th Amendment is clear as day. No state can deny equal treatment under the law to its citizens.
Read it yourself.
"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 to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Marriage is a legal status we as citizens of the US can gain through the government, a privilege that allows for certain benefits and useful applications under it. It doesn't even have to involve religion at all whatsoever, you can get legally married through paperwork and a state representative (justice of the peace). It doesn't mention gays? Well the funny thing is it doesn't mention anyone more specific than "persons born or naturalized in the United States". No mention of race, religion, sexuality, ethnicity or even gender.
If you find that super broad? Good. Obviously in certain circumstances and cases other laws come into effect and would bar dangerous people some of those rights, rights they lost under the law for crimes they will have been legally guilty of. Or for instance if that freedom in question is a violation of someone else's rights. Like say a pedophile and a child.
It is impossible to find an argument that excludes LGB people from that equation that isn't based in a strictly religious argument.
0
'@TheChief'
"2) You've shown utter disgust and contempt for it. That view subscribe to one interpretation of the Constitution. I find it too broadly encompassing for safety's sake. I stand by my statement it's a matter best left to state legislative bodies."
Congratulations on being hypocrite of the year! You lambasted Jacob earlier on picking and choosing, and here we see that actually that is you!
Because you are very literally choosing to not regard the 14th Amendment because apparently its..."too broadly encompassing for safety's sake". Whatever the heck that means. The 14th Amendment is clear as day. No state can deny equal treatment under the law to its citizens.
Read it yourself.
"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 to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Marriage is a legal status we as citizens of the US can gain through the government, a privilege that allows for certain benefits and useful applications under it. It doesn't even have to involve religion at all whatsoever, you can get legally married through paperwork and a state representative (justice of the peace). It doesn't mention gays? Well the funny thing is it doesn't mention anyone more specific than "persons born or naturalized in the United States". No mention of race, religion, sexuality, ethnicity or even gender.
If you find that super broad? Good. Obviously in certain circumstances and cases other laws come into effect and would bar dangerous people some of those rights, rights they lost under the law for crimes they will have been legally guilty of. Or for instance if that freedom in question is a violation of someone else's rights. Like say a pedophile and a child.
It is impossible to find an argument that excludes LGB people from that equation that isn't based in a strictly religious argument.