Poll: 50% say Equal Protection Clause of U.S. Constitution gives gays the right to marry

posted at 5:21 pm on June 6, 2014 by Allahpundit

Four years ago, the split was 49/51. Today it’s 50/43, although I think this poll’s less interesting for the change it shows over time than for the change it doesn’t show. Three months ago, WaPo asked this same question and got a 50/41 split. I thought the flurry of federal-court decisions recently giving gays the right to marry in states like Pennsylvania might trigger a backlash, if not to SSM itself than to SSM imposed by federal order, but today’s number is basically identical to the last one. Americans are not being sticklers in demanding that gay marriage be legalized through democratic processes instead of judicial ones.

Hard to say if the following is noise or a shift/backlash in the making, but it’s worth flagging. Bear in mind that partisan subsamples have larger margins of error than the overall sample. Here’s the result from March, when WaPo first asked whether the Equal Protection Clause does or doesn’t give gays the right to marry…

mar

…versus the result from today:

jun

Maybe the court decisions are boosting Democratic enthusiasm while giving some GOP/indie fencesitters pause. The overall stasis in opinion is preserved because the growing Democratic numbers are offset by the decline in the two other groups, but there’s every reason to believe that Democratic support for judge-backed SSM will continue to grow. And thus so will the overall number, unless that backlash on the right finally materializes. A SCOTUS ruling might do it, but if I had to bet, I’d bet that the net effect of a Supreme Court decision would be to further legitimize gay marriage in the eyes of undecideds rather than instigate a revolt against the Court for trumping state legislatures. We’ll see, probably within the next three years.

One other interesting tidbit from today’s data. You know how amnesty fans are forever insisting that Latinos are natural conservatives because they allegedly lean right on social issues? About that:

his

Part of that eye-popping 59 percent figure almost certainly is statistical noise caused by the larger subsample margin of error. Back in March, WaPo found the split among Latinos to be just 42/40. They didn’t go from narrow plurality to near-supermajority in three months, but that’s not to say the numbers didn’t grow a bit during that time. If you’re inclined to buy the “natural conservative” nonsense, do some googling on polls measuring Latino opinion on gay marriage. They’re in line with Democratic opinion generally. Go figure.

By the way, as of this afternoon, the last of the 50 states that had yet to face a court battle over its SSM ban is now being sued in federal court.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

And if that then also incestuous and polyamorous lovers because . . . . Love of course. The Wife of Bath would approve.

The Commentator on June 6, 2014 at 8:02 PM

Sorry, but this is not journalism. This is an attempt to drive a narrative. And Hot Air is no better than the journalists trying to drive that narrative.

There Goes the Neighborhood on June 6, 2014 at 7:50 PM

Well I guess ‘HotNarrative’ had too many letters compared to ‘HotAir’.

Of course:

Ed does the Pope/Minnesota/Unemployment Beat.

AP covers the Homo Stuff and the Anti-Tea Party Beat.

Mary ‘Jane’ Katherine does the pot Beat. (Still don’t understand how she has not yet reached the level of destroying Juan with ease; perhaps having a buzz is not a good thing)

I guess Noah will have to slap fight someone to cover the Homo Stuff or he’ll continue watching MSNBC so we don’t have to.

Kinda weird that it’s hard to find the Conservative at a Conservative website.

reddevil on June 6, 2014 at 8:05 PM

And the Declaration of Independence does not guarantee any rights…

JetBoy on June 6, 2014 at 7:46 PM

Dead wrong. The DOI “guarantees” the following rights:

1.Life
2.Liberty
3.Pursuit of Happiness
4.Revolution

It also states where those rights come from. If you can’t understand that, don’t even bother trying to interpret the Constitution.

The notion that the 14th Amendment guarantees homosexual “marriage” is as transparently false as the idea that the Constitution protects abortion.

spiritof61 on June 6, 2014 at 8:07 PM

platypus on June 6, 2014 at 7:55 PM

There’s no need to be insulting.

Kensington on June 6, 2014 at 8:20 PM

They also think that the first president was Abraham Lincoln

Brock Robamney on June 6, 2014 at 8:23 PM

spiritof61 on June 6, 2014 at 8:07 PM

Wrong. Those rights are “self-evident”, not “guaranteed” by the Declaration. It’s the Constitution, written, signed, and enacted over a decade after the Declaration was signed. The Declaration of Independence is a document breaking colonial rule by the English crown.

This is History 101 stuff.

JetBoy on June 6, 2014 at 8:24 PM

I told myself I would stay out of this thread but when this kind of ignorance is put on display I feel compelled.

Dead wrong. The DOI “guarantees” the following rights:

1.Life
2.Liberty
3.Pursuit of Happiness
4.Revolution

It also states where those rights come from. If you can’t understand that, don’t even bother trying to interpret the Constitution.

The notion that the 14th Amendment guarantees homosexual “marriage” is as transparently false as the idea that the Constitution protects abortion.

spiritof61 on June 6, 2014 at 8:07 PM

Your “guarantees” in the DOI aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on as far as the law in this country is concerned. The DOI is at its core a propaganda piece. It’s a fantastic document written by quite possibly the greatest man of the last millennium but it is still a propaganda piece passed by a Continental Congress; it is not a part of the Constitution, nor does not carry the force of law under the Constitution. When it comes to what does matter for setting down the rules of government and the rights of the people that rests squarely in the Constitution only, where should add the mention of a supernatural entity is conspicuous by its absence.

alchemist19 on June 6, 2014 at 8:25 PM

Meant to add: The Constitution is where we get our rights guaranteed, not the Declaration.

JetBoy on June 6, 2014 at 8:25 PM

Poll: 50% say Equal Protection Clause of U.S. Constitution gives gays the right to marry
.
Allahpundit
on June 6, 2014 posted at 5:21 PM

.
I want to see the results of the poll question that is worded in the following manner:

Do you believe that homosexuality is a valid, legitimate, alternate state of “normal” ?

listens2glenn on June 6, 2014 at 8:28 PM

Poll: 50% say that

A.The Constitution gives health insurance for everyone
B.The Constitution gives a right to abortion
C.The Constitution allows the federal government to do anything it wants
D.Hillary would be a good president
E.Ukraine is in the Middle East
F.All of the above

spiritof61 on June 6, 2014 at 7:40 PM

This.

CW on June 6, 2014 at 8:29 PM

Maybe we should make something clear: while rights may be unalienable, they are not really guaranteed. Bad people with lots of guns can take those rights away. In fact, the number one right, the right to life, is routinely taken from people every day in a myriad of ways. Including abortion.

HiJack on June 6, 2014 at 8:32 PM

where should add the mention of a supernatural entity is conspicuous by its absence.

alchemist19 on June 6, 2014 at 8:25 PM

As is the mention of the traditional institution of marriage, amirite?

bimmcorp on June 6, 2014 at 8:32 PM

When it comes to what does matter for setting down the rules of government and the rights of the people that rests squarely in the Constitution only, where should add the mention of a supernatural entity is conspicuous by its absence.

alchemist19 on June 6, 2014 at 8:25 PM

.

Meant to add: The Constitution is where we get our rights guaranteed, not the Declaration.

JetBoy on June 6, 2014 at 8:25 PM

.
But this is still true.
.

The notion that the 14th Amendment guarantees homosexual “marriage” is as transparently false as the idea that the Constitution protects abortion.

spiritof61 on June 6, 2014 at 8:07 PM

listens2glenn on June 6, 2014 at 8:33 PM

This is History 101 stuff.

JetBoy on June 6, 2014 at 8:24 PM

Evidently you failed that course.

The Declaration does indeed declare those rights, “guaranteeing” them to all. They are the foundational civil rights. Which is why the Constitution, coming over a decade after the DOI, builds upon them and has no need to include them in the Bill of Rights.

Ignorance of this disqualifies you from any standing in a discussion of constitutional issues. Sorry.

The DOI is at its core a propaganda piece… When it comes to what does matter for setting down the rules of government and the rights of the people that rests squarely in the Constitution only, where should add the mention of a supernatural entity is conspicuous by its absence.

alchemist19 on June 6, 2014 at 8:25 PM

Our old friend alchemist19–I should have guessed from the tone of this rubbish. Denying the DOI’s proclamation of basic rights while pumping the Constitution is a giveaway of the doctrinaire atheist.

Liberty is defined, and rights delineated, in both the Declaration and the Constitution.

spiritof61 on June 6, 2014 at 8:39 PM

I should also mention that “guarantee” is not the best word. Perhaps “entitle” is better. And your rights, whether found in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution, may simply be taken away from you by superior force. The concept of the inalienable right is that you retain it–are “entitled” to it–even when the unjust strip you of it physically.

spiritof61 on June 6, 2014 at 8:45 PM

…the actual word used in the Declaration: “endow.”

spiritof61 on June 6, 2014 at 8:47 PM

Our old friend alchemist19–I should have guessed from the tone of this rubbish. Denying the DOI’s proclamation of basic rights while pumping the Constitution is a giveaway of the doctrinaire atheist.

Liberty is defined, and rights delineated, in both the Declaration and the Constitution.

spiritof61 on June 6, 2014 at 8:39 PM

I don’t deny that the DOI proclaims a set of beliefs, I’m just reminding you – or perhaps informing you for the first time – that the DOI does not have the force of law in this country so citing anything contained therein as if it’s relevant to US law is inappropriate.

alchemist19 on June 6, 2014 at 8:49 PM

DOI does not have the force of law in this country so citing anything contained therein as if it’s relevant to US law is inappropriate.

alchemist19 on June 6, 2014 at 8:49 PM

The anti-slavery movement disagrees. They seem to think that they have an inalienable right to freedom based on the DOI. But you’re right, Justice Taney, the Constitution doesn’t say anything about it and President Buchanan doesn’t want to talk about it either.

spiritof61 on June 6, 2014 at 9:00 PM

Americans are not being sticklers in demanding that gay marriage be legalized through democratic processes instead of judicial ones.

Odd? Every time a VOTE was taken, the answer was NO!

GarandFan on June 6, 2014 at 9:07 PM

A half million Americans died between 1861 and 1865 for THIS? Not likely.

Greek Fire on June 6, 2014 at 9:10 PM

The anti-slavery movement disagrees. They seem to think that they have an inalienable right to freedom based on the DOI. But you’re right, Justice Taney, the Constitution doesn’t say anything about it and President Buchanan doesn’t want to talk about it either.

spiritof61 on June 6, 2014 at 9:00 PM

I said at the outside that the DOI is a beautiful document which contains, among other things, a set of principles which unfortunately we’ve not always been able to live up to. If we want those principles to become law it required things like the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to make it happen.

alchemist19 on June 6, 2014 at 9:14 PM

Odd? Every time a VOTE was taken, the answer was NO!

GarandFan on June 6, 2014 at 9:07 PM

Also not true. The four most recent times a vote was taken the answer was “Yes.”

alchemist19 on June 6, 2014 at 9:23 PM

Poll: 50% say that

A.The Constitution gives health insurance for everyone
B.The Constitution gives a right to abortion
C.The Constitution allows the federal government to do anything it wants
D.Hillary would be a good president
E.Ukraine is in the Middle East
F.All of the above

spiritof61 on June 6, 2014 at 7:40 PM

This.

CW on June 6, 2014 at 8:29 PM

Yep!

Kjeil on June 6, 2014 at 9:30 PM

that the DOI does not have the force of law in this country so citing anything contained therein as if it’s relevant to US law is inappropriate.

Unless anyone is interested in Original Intent. I guess the Federalist Papers are just as disposable, and the words used in the Constitution can be redefined from the intent of the day to the meaning applied by deconstructionalists today.

I agree with you, discarding the DoI leaves us as a Banana Republic.

Reuben Hick on June 6, 2014 at 9:34 PM

What we have is a federal judiciary/Supreme Court filled with bad lawyers and political hacks who interpret the Constitution as they wish without any regard to the meaning and clear intent of its provisions, in defiance of the will of the people and their elected representatives, using specious and bizarre reasoning as necessary, vastly overreaching their constitutional power. They have been doing this for a long time too.

A comment on this from an Illinois lawyer in the context of Dred Scott:

The candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government, upon vital questions affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made, in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.

That being a violation of the right to self-government, implicit in both the Declaration of Independence. Note how alchemist deftly shifts from consideration of “right” to “law” (i.e., the exclusive province of the constitution). In the same speech, our lawyer mentions another inalienable right:

This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it.

You have the right to overthrow the United States government, Constitution and all, when it becomes a tyranny. Where do you find that right enunciated? The Declaration of Independence.

spiritof61 on June 6, 2014 at 9:49 PM

Unless anyone is interested in Original Intent. I guess the Federalist Papers are just as disposable, and the words used in the Constitution can be redefined from the intent of the day to the meaning applied by deconstructionalists today.

I agree with you, discarding the DoI leaves us as a Banana Republic.

Reuben Hick on June 6, 2014 at 9:34 PM

“Original intent” isn’t relevant to an attempt to establish some equivalency of the content of DOI and the Constitution because there’s not a great deal of overlap in the signers. 56 men signed the DOI, 40 signed the Constitution but only six signed both.

alchemist19 on June 6, 2014 at 9:59 PM

spiritof61 on June 6, 2014 at 9:00 PM

.
I said at the outside that the DOI is a beautiful document which contains, among other things, a set of principles which unfortunately we’ve not always been able to live up to. If we want those principles to become law it required things like the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to make it happen.

alchemist19 on June 6, 2014 at 9:14 PM

.
The single most important of those principles had it’s PUBLIC recognition decreed ‘against the law’ by a bunch of sorry-assed, “black-robed bench-sitters” (I luv hyphenated words) back in the early to mid 1960s.
.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, …

.
If you’re NOT trying to reword the preceding text in the following manner:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, …

.
… then what are you trying to do?

listens2glenn on June 6, 2014 at 10:02 PM

Meant to add: The Constitution is where we get our rights guaranteed, not the Declaration.

JetBoy on June 6, 2014 at 8:25 PM

Our rights do not come from the Constitution, the Constitution limits the power of the federal government.(it use to at least)

The constitution was around until 1787, about 11 years after the DOI.

b1jetmech on June 6, 2014 at 10:06 PM

JetBoy on June 6, 2014 at 8:25 PM

.
Our rights do not come from the Constitution, the Constitution limits the power of the federal government.(it use to at least)

The constitution was around until 1787, about 11 years after the DOI.

b1jetmech on June 6, 2014 at 10:06 PM

.
Damn, that was well put.

Another way of putting it: … Our rights come from the Creator, and the Constitution limits the power of government (on all levels) to infringe on those rights.

listens2glenn on June 6, 2014 at 10:11 PM

What we have is a federal judiciary/Supreme Court filled with bad lawyers and political hacks who interpret the Constitution as they wish without any regard to the meaning and clear intent of its provisions,

It’s being interpreted with complete regard for the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause

in defiance of the will of the people and their elected representatives,

Majority status does not give a majority of any size license to violate anyone’s Constitutional rights.

using specious and bizarre reasoning as necessary,

Nothing specious or bizarre at all if you understand the law.

vastly overreaching their constitutional power. They have been doing this for a long time too.

Are you opposed to judicial review?

A comment on this from an Illinois lawyer in the context of Dred Scott:

The candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government, upon vital questions affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made, in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.

That being a violation of the right to self-government, implicit in both the Declaration of Independence. Note how alchemist deftly shifts from consideration of “right” to “law” (i.e., the exclusive province of the constitution). In the same speech, our lawyer mentions another inalienable right:

This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it.

You have the right to overthrow the United States government, Constitution and all, when it becomes a tyranny. Where do you find that right enunciated? The Declaration of Independence.

spiritof61 on June 6, 2014 at 9:49 PM

One wonders what your Illinois lawyer would think of a group of people trying to oppress the rights of a minority for no good reason.

alchemist19 on June 6, 2014 at 10:15 PM

Your “guarantees” in the DOI aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on as far as the law in this country is concerned. The DOI is at its core a propaganda piece. It’s a fantastic document written by quite possibly the greatest man of the last millennium but it is still a propaganda piece passed by a Continental Congress; it is not a part of the Constitution, nor does not carry the force of law under the Constitution. When it comes to what does matter for setting down the rules of government and the rights of the people that rests squarely in the Constitution only, where should add the mention of a supernatural entity is conspicuous by its absence.

alchemist19 on June 6, 2014 at 8:25 PM

When the founders all signed that document that you allege is a propaganda piece, they signed their death warrant.

Show respect for our founding document that changed the world and quit looking at the world through homosexuality.

We do not get our rights from the Constitution, it limits the power of the federal government. Like I said to jetboy, the Constitution didn’t come about until 1787…11 years after the DOI.

Plus, the homosexual lobby has misused, abuse the 14th A to redifin it as somehow legalizing homosexual marriage. Where did that come from???

b1jetmech on June 6, 2014 at 10:19 PM

One wonders what your Illinois lawyer would think of a group of people trying to oppress the rights of a minority for no good reason.

alchemist19 on June 6, 2014 at 10:15 PM

Since the minority in this case is acting like an oligarch, I have no problem not accepting their redefinitions.

b1jetmech on June 6, 2014 at 10:20 PM

spiritof61 on June 6, 2014 at 9:49 PM

.
One wonders what your Illinois lawyer would think of a group of people trying to oppress the rights of a minority for no good reason.

alchemist19 on June 6, 2014 at 10:15 PM

.
I believe the “Illinois lawyer” in question would respond to you in the following manner: … when did “public recognition and acceptance of homosexuality being normal” become a “RIGHT”?

I believe that’s exactly what his response would be.

listens2glenn on June 6, 2014 at 10:22 PM

As I wrote earlier, if over 50% of Americans approve of homosexuals calling what they do “marriage”, then the majority of states would not have voted against it…and Liberal Activist Judges would not be working so hard to actively overturn the will of the people.

kingsjester on June 6, 2014 at 10:34 PM

Damn, that was well put.

Another way of putting it: … Our rights come from the Creator, and the Constitution limits the power of government (on all levels) to infringe on those rights.

listens2glenn on June 6, 2014 at 10:11 PM

Thanks man!

b1jetmech on June 6, 2014 at 10:34 PM

As I wrote earlier, if over 50% of Americans approve of homosexuals calling what they do “marriage”, then the majority of states would not have voted against it…and Liberal Activist Judges would not be working so hard to actively overturn the will of the people.

kingsjester on June 6, 2014 at 10:34 PM

Good point. I like to add, if the people are so for it, then how come homosexual activist are going to the courts to overturn the will of people rather let the people or the legislatures vote on it?

b1jetmech on June 6, 2014 at 10:36 PM

Exactly.

kingsjester on June 6, 2014 at 10:37 PM

When the founders all signed that document that you allege is a propaganda piece, they signed their death warrant.

Your use of the word “founders” is a bit muddled. If you’re referring to the men who founded the government of the United States then you’re talking about the men who signed the Constitution, not the DOI, and as I pointed out earlier there is not much overlap between those two groups. I know the risk the men who signed the DOI took but the courage they showed in putting their name to that document does not make the document law in the United States today.

Show respect for our founding document that changed the world and quit looking at the world through homosexuality.

I have great respect for it but that doesn’t mean we should pretend it’s something that it isn’t

We do not get our rights from the Constitution, it limits the power of the federal government. Like I said to jetboy, the Constitution didn’t come about until 1787…11 years after the DOI.

True but not relevant.

Plus, the homosexual lobby has misused, abuse the 14th A to redifin it as somehow legalizing homosexual marriage. Where did that come from???

b1jetmech on June 6, 2014 at 10:19 PM

The Equal Protection Clause.

alchemist19 on June 6, 2014 at 10:37 PM

Thomas Jefferson’s personal account
of the Declaration of Independence -
January 6, 1821

Fascinating reading! Read his autobiography years ago, but will do so again.

tanked59 on June 6, 2014 at 10:46 PM

Your use of the word “founders” is a bit muddled. If you’re referring to the men who founded the government of the United States then you’re talking about the men who signed the Constitution, not the DOI, and as I pointed out earlier there is not much overlap between those two groups. I know the risk the men who signed the DOI took but the courage they showed in putting their name to that document does not make the document law in the United States today.

WTF!

..and I don’t cuss.

This country is founded in 1776 NOT 1787. get your civics CORRECT!

Wonder why we celebrate the 4th of July???

Since your wrong on this, what else are you wrong on?

The fact you believe this bull-shovik disqualifies you from any debate pertaining to logic and civics.

We couldn’t have a Constitution if there was no DOI. The Constitution wasn’t even thought of during the ratification of the DOI.

I have great respect for it but that doesn’t mean we should pretend it’s something that it isn’t

It somehow became a religion overnight.

True but not relevant.

Says you…not everyone else.

The Equal Protection Clause.

You should read the Constitution directly and not layers of reinterpretations from activist courts not that you will. Also read the authors of the 14A and what it was intended for. You will be thoroughly disappointed.

b1jetmech on June 6, 2014 at 10:50 PM

Good point. I like to add, if the people are so for it, then how come homosexual activist are going to the courts to overturn the will of people rather let the people or the legislatures vote on it?

b1jetmech on June 6, 2014 at 10:36 PM

Two reasons I can think of, one practical and one philosophical.

The practical reason is going to the courts is faster and cheaper. Going through the process of conducting a referendum and waging a campaign is costly and time-consuming, and you can’t get results until the next election. Oregon was prepared to overturn their amendment by a vote but it would have taken until November to get it done. Nevada’s legislature has voted to overturn their state amendment but before it can go to the voters it must be voted on in another legislative session and then the campaign begins. The courts can handle the issue in a lot less time for a lot less money,

The philosophical reason is that the courts have always been the guarantor of civil rights in this country. We didn’t end segregation by waiting for legislatures to vote on the matter or state amendments to pass, we did it through the court system. Protecting the rights of a minority from the tyranny of the majority is one of the things the courts are there for so really the courts here are just being asked to do their job.

alchemist19 on June 6, 2014 at 10:54 PM

The courts can handle the issue in a lot less time for a lot less money,

So, by illegally violate the 10th amendment a federal judge will just overturn the will of the people of state? And I thought Congress only had the power to legislate, didn’t know the courts can act as mini Constitutional conventions and some how magically declare homosexual a civil right because some anti slavery/post reconstruction amendment declares it so and overrule every where else in the Constitution.

The philosophical reason is that the courts have always been the guarantor of civil rights in this country.

yeah that was proven with the Dred-Scott and Plessy vs Ferguson case that one prolonged slavery and other pro longed segregation. Did you forget that minor detail? It may have been two cases but one basically started a civil war the other allowed segregation to go on for another 40-50 years.

I don’t recall SCOTUS approval of obamacare as a champion for civil rights when were all losing our freedoms and ability to live.

So you go ahead and put your faith into unelected judicial system and we will continue to watch our country to unravel.

b1jetmech on June 6, 2014 at 11:02 PM

WTF!

..and I don’t cuss.

This country is founded in 1776 NOT 1787. get your civics CORRECT!

Wonder why we celebrate the 4th of July???

Since your wrong on this, what else are you wrong on?

The fact you believe this bull-shovik disqualifies you from any debate pertaining to logic and civics.

We couldn’t have a Constitution if there was no DOI. The Constitution wasn’t even thought of during the ratification of the DOI.

I think we are talking past each other. I’m focusing on what is and is not law in this country and that begins in 1787. The term “founders” is being used to describe two different sets of men who put their names to two different documents, one of which is the basis for the law in this country and the other of which is not.

As to the civics lesson, the Declaration of Independence was indeed a propaganda piece set to try to win over those in the colonies who were somewhat recalcitrant when it came to supporting the revolution. Lexington and Concord were over a year before the DOI and there was still a lot of hesitation to support the revolution and the DOI was another way to try to rally support.

It somehow became a religion overnight.

What did?

Says you…not everyone else.

What’s the relevance to your point about the Constitution founding our current government 11 years after an earlier government adopted the DOI?

You should read the Constitution directly and not layers of reinterpretations from activist courts not that you will. Also read the authors of the 14A and what it was intended for. You will be thoroughly disappointed.

b1jetmech on June 6, 2014 at 10:50 PM

I’ve read it throughly. Picked up a copy at the National Archives years ago. I can go read it again directly right now if necessary. No activists courts needed!

I’m also familiar with the authors of the Fourteenth Amendment and their intentions, I’d wager probably a lot more familiar with them than you are. If you believe you’re going to trip me up with the startling revelation that the Congress which passed the Fourteenth Amendment didn’t have anything about the rights of certain minority groups to marry in mind then you’re not exactly giving me something I haven’t seen before, but it’s irrelevant. What is relevant is the clear and unambiguous text which they actually put in the Constitution, and that is that states cannot deny citizens equal protection under the law. They didn’t say “equal protection based on race,” they left it more broad and said “equal protection” with no qualifications so since they didn’t specify narrowly we’re left to use the words they actually wrote and go with the broader application. Let that be a lesson to you to word your Constitutional amendments more carefully in the future.

alchemist19 on June 6, 2014 at 11:12 PM

So, by illegally violate the 10th amendment a federal judge will just overturn the will of the people of state? And I thought Congress only had the power to legislate, didn’t know the courts can act as mini Constitutional conventions and some how magically declare homosexual a civil right because some anti slavery/post reconstruction amendment declares it so and overrule every where else in the Constitution.

The Tenth Amendment argument is the mark of a legal ignoramus.

The Tenth Amendment goes like this

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.

Note the bolded section about powers prohibited to the States. The Constitution at the time of its adoption contained a list of powers the states didn’t have like coining money, signing treaties and so on. The Fourteenth Amendment added a few more items to that list of powers the states don’t have, specifically the power to deny citizens due process and equal protection. If a state is found to be violating either of those then the Tenth Amendment is no shield because the Tenth Amendment says the states don’t have the power to deny equal protection or due process even if a majority of voters in a state wish they could.

yeah that was proven with the Dred-Scott and Plessy vs Ferguson case that one prolonged slavery and other pro longed segregation. Did you forget that minor detail? It may have been two cases but one basically started a civil war the other allowed segregation to go on for another 40-50 years.

I don’t recall SCOTUS approval of obamacare as a champion for civil rights when were all losing our freedoms and ability to live.

So you go ahead and put your faith into unelected judicial system and we will continue to watch our country to unravel.

b1jetmech on June 6, 2014 at 11:02 PM

The Dred Scott case predates the Fourteenth Amendment so it has zero relevance to a discussion of application of that amendment.

As for Plessy, the court got that wrong and admitted as much when they reversed themselves on it in Brown.

alchemist19 on June 6, 2014 at 11:19 PM

A law that bans all men, not just gay men, from marrying other men, should not be unconstitutional.

And a law that bans all women, not just gay women, from marrying other women, should not be unconstitutional.

J Baustian on June 6, 2014 at 11:25 PM

I am waiting to see if the courts tie themselves into knots when people wanting polygamy, polyandry, or group marriage demand their rights to marry or just go ahead and say it’s legal.

Nomas on June 6, 2014 at 11:29 PM

A law that bans all men, not just gay men, from marrying other men, should not be unconstitutional.

And a law that bans all women, not just gay women, from marrying other women, should not be unconstitutional.

J Baustian on June 6, 2014 at 11:25 PM

BINGO. It’s not about equal protection. And never was. Gays were on much sounder footing when it was a matter of private conduct. But conservatives knew it wouldn’t stay that way for long — and we were right.

gryphon202 on June 7, 2014 at 12:21 AM

I think we are talking past each other. I’m focusing on what is and is not law in this country and that begins in 1787. The term “founders” is being used to describe two different sets of men who put their names to two different documents, one of which is the basis for the law in this country and the other of which is not.
- Alchemist19

Here’s the part I think most activists miss. You talk about the Constitution as the source of all rights, when in reality the Founders insisted that rights were unalienable (not inalienable, by the way) and endowed by God. And that the attempt to limit those rights was enough for a people to revolt against their government.

They recognized, though, that no matter how well intentioned at the start, that mankind being what it was, those who would rule over others rather than actually work for a living would eventually find their way into the halls of Congress. That being the case, they designed a Constitution whose primary purpose was to limit the mischief such people could do.

Except for some pretty specific procedural issues, the Constitution is far less about what the people can do than what the government cannot.

And the main thing the government cannot do is get in the way of people’s faith. Forcing celebration of gay lifestyle is very much an infringement of many religions. Like it or not, a whole lot of people belong to religions that believe homosexual activity is immoral. You may disagree, but you have no right to try to force other people into your viewpoint.

There’s simply no place in the Constitution that guarantees homosexuals the right to redefine marriage to be a way to force people to legitimize behavior they find abhorrent.

Eventually society may change. Having gay marriage in your face every waking moment has worn some people down. Push polls like the one that’s the focus of this article can sway the low-information populace. But I can tell you anecdotally that while some people I know have grudgingly grown to accept gay marriage as inevitable, just as many if not more are getting fed up with the constant activism.

AJsDaddie on June 7, 2014 at 12:29 AM

I think we are talking past each other. I’m focusing on what is and is not law in this country and that begins in 1787. The term “founders” is being used to describe two different sets of men who put their names to two different documents, one of which is the basis for the law in this country and the other of which is not.

Again, the Constitution wasn’t even thought of in its current form during the ratification in 1776. I don’t even have a clue why you would take such a position to think law began in 1787. Maybe you take this position because your still holding out that our rights come from the Constitution.

As to the civics lesson, the Declaration of Independence was indeed a propaganda piece set to try to win over those in the colonies who were somewhat recalcitrant when it came to supporting the revolution. Lexington and Concord were over a year before the DOI and there was still a lot of hesitation to support the revolution and the DOI was another way to try to rally support.

Absolutely not. It was to establish the United States of America against the most powerful empire in the world. Without the DOI, we would have no Constitution.

What did?

Homosexuality.

What’s the relevance to your point about the Constitution founding our current government 11 years after an earlier government adopted the DOI?

The relevance is, our rights do not come from the Constitution as you assert. Our rights precede the Constitution. The Constitution limits the power of the federal government.

What is relevant is the clear and unambiguous text which they actually put in the Constitution, and that is that states cannot deny citizens equal protection under the law. They didn’t say “equal protection based on race,” they left it more broad and said “equal protection” with no qualifications so since they didn’t specify narrowly we’re left to use the words they actually wrote and go with the broader application. Let that be a lesson to you to word your Constitutional amendments more carefully in the future.

alchemist19 on June 6, 2014 at 11:12 PM

This is where your lack of understanding in civics bares. If it doesn’t say in the Constitution about a particular issue like homosexual wanting to change the definition of marriage. Then it defaults to the 10th amendment.

“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.”

Since homosexual marriage isn’t defined in the Constitution, then the matter is left to the states. That part as been illegally modified by the courts claiming there’s an invisible ink right there to justify homosexual marriage. Remember, these are activist judges with little understanding of the Constitution making these decisions. Like one judge recently who overturned some state ban and got the DOI and the Constitution mixed up in his ruling. pretty embarrassing, this coming from such high esteem people making decision for us when they shouldn’t be.

These are the very people in black robes you look to to over turn the will of the people.

b1jetmech on June 7, 2014 at 12:51 AM

You people must realize that there is disagreement in our party as to whether or not to persecute gay people. Many of you don’t even see it as persecution. Imagine for the same of argument that you did.

Imagine further that you saw your party again and again squander finite political capital fruitlessly attacking an innocent demographic that really offers them no threat for no rational reason.

People… we have bigger fish to fry then again wasting our time and dishonoring ourselves by hurting these people. Just leave them alone. Grant them the same rights you yourself would expect to have in their position… they right settle down with someone they love… and find a more reasonable place to vent your wrath.

Here I’m going to eat frothing invective from comically wounded egos and honor. That wasn’t my intention. I really don’t want to insult or offend or even upset any of you. But I can’t let you sit here and pretend that our whole coalition is in lockstep on this crusade against homosexuals. Leave them alone. If the party doesn’t calm down on this issue people like me will stay home on election day… we’ll be too disgusted to show up. And without us you can’t win national elections. You might win your state or your district. But the presidency will belong to the socialists unless you’re able to grasp that they are the primary threat… and not your kneejerk hobbyhorse of the moment.

Karmashock on June 7, 2014 at 12:57 AM

Note the bolded section about powers prohibited to the States. The Constitution at the time of its adoption contained a list of powers the states didn’t have like coining money, signing treaties and so on. The Fourteenth Amendment added a few more items to that list of powers the states don’t have, specifically the power to deny citizens due process and equal protection. If a state is found to be violating either of those then the Tenth Amendment is no shield because the Tenth Amendment says the states don’t have the power to deny equal protection or due process even if a majority of voters in a state wish they could.

Per liberal interpretation. If the 10th amendment was added to it would have done so through the Con Con method. No references in the 14A that it modifies the 10thA. So you have a problem there. The 14A was put in place to give the federal government unlimited power to come up with any liberal social agenda and force it onto the states.

As for Plessy, the court got that wrong and admitted as much when they reversed themselves on it in Brown.

So it’s okay as long as the court reversed themselves right? After decades of segregation rubber stamped by SCOTUS. Their consequences are suddenly wiped clean because of brown vs board? Once again, this is the institution you put your faith in. Guess you have to because you can’t get people to go along so you and your ilk have to switch to oligarchy to get your agenda through?

The Dred Scott case predates the Fourteenth Amendment so it has zero relevance to a discussion of application of that amendment.

alchemist19 on June 6, 2014 at 11:19 PM

It address’s the post slavery/reconstruction era where former slaves didn’t have standing to sue because they were not citizens. That was major thrust in proposing the 14A, not blacks wanting same sex marriage.

So yes, it has all the relevance to our discussion.

Besides, no one has proven homosexuality to be normal. It’s based on emotion and emotion can’t decide law.

b1jetmech on June 7, 2014 at 1:11 AM

But I can’t let you sit here and pretend that our whole coalition is in lockstep on this crusade against homosexuals.

Karmashock on June 7, 2014 at 12:57 AM

Well, if they would leave us alone and quit bastardizing our laws and legislation of laws then I wold be cool with it. Just because we don’t agree to their re-definitions doesn’t mean were going after them.

b1jetmech on June 7, 2014 at 1:14 AM

They have fallen into the trap of the gays by listening to the media, public schools, Hollywood, some liberal churches and more…How do they justify sodomy??

Bullhead on June 7, 2014 at 1:22 AM

There is NO SUCH THING as “gay marriage” -period.

Marriage, BY DEFINITION, is heterosexual; “heterosexual marriage” is redundant.

The distinguishing attribute of marriage is that it involves a man and a woman becoming husband and wife. That’s what the word “marriage” means.

It’s really just that simple.

Wing Chun Man on June 7, 2014 at 1:42 AM

By the way, as of this afternoon, the last of the 50 states that had yet to face a court battle over its SSM ban is now being sued in federal court.

Gee, wonder how that”l turn out. At this point every single person in America, including every gay person, could vote against gay marriage and judges would throw the vote out, it’s not our country anymore, it’s the governments, we’re just the slaves.

clearbluesky on June 7, 2014 at 2:08 AM

Why does Hot Air push so hard on the pro gay agenda? Is the readership here really that pro gay or is there some other reason?

An alternative headline could be “50% polled have new clue what the equal protection clause means”.

Paperclips on June 7, 2014 at 2:54 AM

Gay Americans have always had the right to marry. Gay men have been marrying women and gay women have been marrying men since forever. There is not an discrimination issue with allowing gays to marry. Nobody as far as I am aware has ever denied a gay man from marrying a woman.

This is about what the word “marriage” means.

crosspatch on June 7, 2014 at 4:10 AM

. If I do not believe in the Creator, which is my unquestionable and unalienable right, where do my other rights (or yours, for the matter) come from?

Rix on June 6, 2014 at 6:00 PM

3 rights are “unalienable” Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Everything in the Constitution is meant only to insure those three. That also means that while you have every right to not believe in a god and I have every right to question that belief (or lack there of) and try to persuade you to see things my way. In fact my faith requires it, and you have every right to tell me to get f@*ked.

Gwillie on June 7, 2014 at 4:12 AM

The stupid false choices never end. There’s a difference between “having a relationship you choose to all a marriage” and “getting special exemptions to the licensing requirements everyone else has to follow so you can use the force of government to make everyone else call your relationship a marriage.”

CapnObvious on June 7, 2014 at 4:49 AM

… I’m focusing on what is and is not law in this country and that begins in 1787.

The DOI was the foundation upon which the cornerstone, The Constitution was laid.

The term “founders” is being used to describe two different sets of men who put their names to two different documents,

Our nation was born with the signing of the DOI. The men who wrote and signed that document are our “founders” The men who wrote the Constitution were representatives from the states who gathered for the purpose of writing the rules by which we would be governed. They didn’t disregard the DOI and they did not throw out its principles, they wrote the Constitution to protect them.

one of which is the basis for the law in this country and the other of which is not.

One of which is the basis for the Constitution and the other is the Constitution.

As to the civics lesson, the Declaration of Independence was indeed a propaganda piece set to try to win over those in the colonies who were somewhat recalcitrant when it came to supporting the revolution.

Propaganda can be used to describe almost any presentation or defense of any ideal. In fact it is almost impossible to present or defend an ideal without venturing into propaganda. I believe that is why the left dismisses so much as being propaganda, they call it that and no longer have to worry about the substance of what they are dismissing. There were many drafts of the DOI. There were far more people writing differing documents expressing different ideals at the time, from communism to total anarchy, some good, some really good, many bad and a few very very bad. Many of these came out in the form of pamphlets or tracks or were posted on bulletin boards outside the town hall. But this one, the one we hold to, the one signed by our founders, presented an ideal of the individual has sovereign with a government subservient to the people. It wasn’t a “Hey look we really mean it, join the fight” document it was a “Hey this is really worth fighting for” document.

Lexington and Concord were over a year before the DOI and there was still a lot of hesitation to support the revolution and the DOI was another way to try to rally support.

Who would want to go to war with the greatest military the world had ever seen? Who would give up their lively hood and homes and march through long winters in raged clothing, who would do this knowing that if they failed they would live only long enough to know their children would become destitute and shunned. Who could be convinced to do all of this in a year, even after enduring so much? The DOI didn’t convince a people to fight, It provided a people with a goal to fight for! The knowledge that after the fight they would be free.

You can not separate the DOI from the Law because the DOI is the foundation of our law. Without it there would be no Constitution. The men who wrote our Constitution did so knowing that our rights were there already, as described in the DOI so they did not give us any. Rather they defined the ones our government could not infringe upon.

Gwillie on June 7, 2014 at 5:27 AM

Karmashock on June 7, 2014 at 12:57 AM

Leave them alone?! I would like nothing better, yet I keep having their demand for forced acceptance shoved in my face. There are a substantial number of homosexuals who are using judges to force people to associate with them (“Bake my wedding cake!” “Take pictures of my wedding ceremony!”). I would be happy to leave them alone, if they in turn would stop trying to make me “celebrate” them and pretend that something that by definition can never exist (gay “marriage”) is a “right.”

DrMagnolias on June 7, 2014 at 6:48 AM

Leave them alone?! I would like nothing better, yet I keep having their demand for forced acceptance shoved in my face. There are a substantial number of homosexuals who are using judges to force people to associate with them (“Bake my wedding cake!” “Take pictures of my wedding ceremony!”). I would be happy to leave them alone, if they in turn would stop trying to make me “celebrate” them and pretend that something that by definition can never exist (gay “marriage”) is a “right.”

DrMagnolias on June 7, 2014 at 6:48 AM

This is one of the lamest of arguments – that we are fortunately starting to see less and less of.
Nothing is shoved in your face…your just shoving your face into their lives by advocating against equal rights for them.
Are you even aware of the benefits and rights marriage offers? They’re not asking to be allowed to kiss or argue about driving directions.
I suppose women were shoving it in your face when they wanted the right to vote?
And interracial couples were shoving it in your face when they wanted the right to marry?
And providing services that a business publicly offers and advertises is not ‘celebrating’.

verbaluce on June 7, 2014 at 7:12 AM

Nothing is shoved in your face…your just shoving your face into their lives by advocating against equal rights for them.

verbaluce on June 7, 2014 at 7:12 AM

Since homosexuality is not genetic, why do they deserve “equal rights”? Since when does a behavior/lifestyle give a person the “right” to impose involuntary servitude onto someone else?

Rebar on June 7, 2014 at 9:16 AM

What does it do for victims of Affirmative Action?

alanstern on June 7, 2014 at 9:53 AM

Ha I got news for you! The Equal Protection clause means everyone gets free birth control………..
Signed…. Sandra Fluke.

Herb on June 7, 2014 at 10:18 AM

This is one of the lamest of arguments – that we are fortunately starting to see less and less of.
Nothing is shoved in your face…your just shoving your face into their lives by advocating against equal rights for them.
verbaluce on June 7, 2014 at 7:12 AM

Those equal rights are extended to all, Men and woman can get married equally to members of the opposite sex regardless of sexual identity. What the “Movement” disregards is that marriage is not and was not ever intended to be a mechanism for two people living together, or getting tax breaks or even having sex. Marriage between a man and a woman has become the norm in every civil society because it has proven to be the best way to maintain and grow a Civil Society.

Traditional marriage provides a foundation where children can grow and learn to be civil more often than not. Where a care network can be learned and practiced where reliance on others is safe and becoming reliable is a requirement. Sure there are bad marriages and bad families but they are outside the norm. Sure there are good same sex families that raise healthy straight children and instill good family values to the children they raise, but they also are outside the norm. Traditional marriage is defended because without it’s bedrock our people have no way to grow and our society would soon collapse.

The goal of the left is to undermine the family and force reliance on the government, allowing the government to control more aspects of the lives of the people they rule thereby increasing the power they have to rule. They have created a dependent state within the poor and minority communities by making rules that reward broken families and punish intact families. Leaving the people who live in these communities in perpetual poverty, hopelessness and life long dependance. Now they are expanding this degradation of the family to the middle and upper classes but without the hook of a government check they need another way to undermine the family hence easy divorce, misleading statics (“Over half of all marriages end in divorce”. The truth is 75% of first marriages last until the death of one partner) and now gay marriage. The gay marriage movement is meant to kill the bedrock of a free society not expand it, plain and simple.

Most of the time when I bring up this argument I’m greeted with the “When homosexuality is accepted history shows that a society becomes more affluent.” But when I look at the great civilizations of the past I find that as the societies became more affluent they became open to sexual indiscretions including homosexuality and those indiscretions led to the break up of the traditional family and then they collapsed. The Greeks trained children to become soldiers then trained them to be sex slaves as they became more affluent. The Romans ruled the world then locked themselves behind the walls of Rome to feast and reveal in all manner of sexual indiscretions as their empire collapsed beyond. Europe once led the world and as we rose above them in power they became content to live under our protective wing and abandoned the traditional family and now they must bring in foreign nationals as labor even as those people refuse to accept or recognize the rules of the civil societies in which they now live. The breakdown of sexual restraint and with it the traditional family is a large part of that if not the key reason.

The struggle for gay rights was sold to the American people as allowing gay men and women the right to live as they chose. The right to love and be loved without hiding who they are or being discriminated against for who they are. For the most part Americans accepted this right with the understand that the gay rights movement was not going to pursue marriage or undermine religious liberty. What happened in the 90s is the rejection of religious liberty were written into the hate crime laws and the ideals of sin and faith are being redefined by anti-bullying laws, and of course marriage is being challenged in every state

Many of my gay friends would say that it was hate to say being gay was a sin, but for a believer leading one away from sin is love. For a believer knows we are all sinners and the way to be saved is not by not sinning (because we can not not sin) but by seeking redemption with God. True believers know that being gay doesn’t mean you cant be saved, Gay people will stand with the redeemed their sins forgiven and forgotten their souls washed and cleaned by the blood of the lamb. All that is required (according to my understanding of the bible) is that you believe in Jesus Christ and that he has been raised from the dead for without the resurrection their could be no victory over sin and death.

Gwillie on June 7, 2014 at 10:42 AM

Gay Americans have always had the right to marry. Gay men have been marrying women and gay women have been marrying men since forever. There is not an discrimination issue with allowing gays to marry. Nobody as far as I am aware has ever denied a gay man from marrying a woman.

This is about what the word “marriage” means.

crosspatch on June 7, 2014 at 4:10 AM

Still the stupidest thing…a classic of comedy gold.

Nobody as far as I am aware has ever denied a heterosexual man from marrying a woman, either…SSM or no SSM. That wouldn’t change under legal gay marriage.

JetBoy on June 7, 2014 at 1:49 PM

Where exactly does one find the “Constitution May Be Amended By Public Opinion Polls” clause?

Afterseven on June 7, 2014 at 2:17 PM

Here’s the part I think most activists miss. You talk about the Constitution as the source of all rights, when in reality the Founders insisted that rights were unalienable (not inalienable, by the way) and endowed by God. And that the attempt to limit those rights was enough for a people to revolt against their government.

When you’re dealing with a secular government like the one we have in this country it would be curious to hold that the rights come from a god (let alone which god, and whose interpretation of the associated religious texts) but even if so it’s not really relevant in the application of the law where the rights flow from.

They recognized, though, that no matter how well intentioned at the start, that mankind being what it was, those who would rule over others rather than actually work for a living would eventually find their way into the halls of Congress. That being the case, they designed a Constitution whose primary purpose was to limit the mischief such people could do.

Except for some pretty specific procedural issues, the Constitution is far less about what the people can do than what the government cannot.

True.

And the main thing the government cannot do is get in the way of people’s faith.

Ummmm, no.

Forcing celebration of gay lifestyle is very much an infringement of many religions.

They don’t celebrate one if it bothers you that much.

Like it or not, a whole lot of people belong to religions that believe homosexual activity is immoral.

And those people have that right.

You may disagree, but you have no right to try to force other people into your viewpoint.

I’m not trying to force anyone to change their viewpoint. I’ll point out their viewpoint doesn’t make any logical sense and isn’t legally defensible, but I can’t force them to change.

There’s simply no place in the Constitution that guarantees homosexuals the right to redefine marriage to be a way to force people to legitimize behavior they find abhorrent.

Not in those terms. There’s no place in the Constitution which explicitly guarantees interracial couples the right to redefine marriage to be a way to force people to legitimize (whatever that means) behavior they find abhorrent either.

Eventually society may change.

Most of it already has. That’s what the poll was about.

Having gay marriage in your face every waking moment has worn some people down. Push polls like the one that’s the focus of this article can sway the low-information populace.

Can you back up your assertion that this was a push-poll? And can you define “push-poll” while you’re at it?

But I can tell you anecdotally that while some people I know have grudgingly grown to accept gay marriage as inevitable, just as many if not more are getting fed up with the constant activism.

AJsDaddie on June 7, 2014 at 12:29 AM

Because anecdotes are generally reliable as evidence, right?

alchemist19 on June 7, 2014 at 2:30 PM

Absolutely not. It was to establish the United States of America against the most powerful empire in the world. Without the DOI, we would have no Constitution.

It was a statement of principles of the Second Continental Congress. There are some great principles in there but it does NOT carry the force of law today. Even if your rather interesting yet unsupported statement about there being no Constitution without the DOI is true that does not mean the principles of the DOI are law.

Our nation was born with the signing of the DOI. The men who wrote and signed that document are our “founders” The men who wrote the Constitution were representatives from the states who gathered for the purpose of writing the rules by which we would be governed. They didn’t disregard the DOI and they did not throw out its principles, they wrote the Constitution to protect them.

It’s interesting then that when they wrote the Constitution to protect those principles they left so many of them out.

Homosexuality.

Ummm, that’s not a religion.

The relevance is, our rights do not come from the Constitution as you assert. Our rights precede the Constitution. The Constitution limits the power of the federal government.

Originally it limited the power of the federal government over the states and the people, subsequent amendments also limited the power of the states over the people. And it doesn’t matter where the rights come from.

This is where your lack of understanding in civics bares. If it doesn’t say in the Constitution about a particular issue like homosexual wanting to change the definition of marriage. Then it defaults to the 10th amendment.

“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.”

Since homosexual marriage isn’t defined in the Constitution, then the matter is left to the states. That part as been illegally modified by the courts claiming there’s an invisible ink right there to justify homosexual marriage. Remember, these are activist judges with little understanding of the Constitution making these decisions. Like one judge recently who overturned some state ban and got the DOI and the Constitution mixed up in his ruling. pretty embarrassing, this coming from such high esteem people making decision for us when they shouldn’t be.

These are the very people in black robes you look to to over turn the will of the people.

b1jetmech on June 7, 2014 at 12:51 AM

Someone as ignorant of the law as you trying to accuse me of a lack of civics knowledge makes your claims ring a bit hollow. More than a bit, in fact.

There’s nothing about interracial marriage in the Constitution. But there is a guarantee for equal protection. There was no debate about whether or not people were not being treated equally, the question was whether or not the unequal treatment could be justified. In the end it could not and so the state marriage laws were struck down. Virginia and the other states could have kept their prohibition on interracial marriage in place if they had stopped recognizing all marriages because there is no explicit right to interracial marriage but because the state wants to recognize marriages they were obligated to do so equally. You’re welcome for the legal history lesson. Now you’ve got some homework to do.

alchemist19 on June 7, 2014 at 2:42 PM

Per liberal interpretation. If the 10th amendment was added to it would have done so through the Con Con method. No references in the 14A that it modifies the 10thA. So you have a problem there. The 14A was put in place to give the federal government unlimited power to come up with any liberal social agenda and force it onto the states.

The Tenth Amendment wasn’t added to. The list of powers prohibited to the states (which is NOT listed in the Tenth Amendment!) was added to by the Fourteenth Amendment, and because the Tenth already specified the states don’t have the powers which the Constitution forbids them from having, any mention to modification of the Tenth by the Fourteenth would have been redundant.

You’re right that the Fourteenth Amendment did give the federal government the power to trump a tyrannical state government abusing the rights of the people, but the states agreed to give the federal government that power when they ratified the Fourteenth Amendment so if they’re unhappy they only have themselves to blame.

So it’s okay as long as the court reversed themselves right? After decades of segregation rubber stamped by SCOTUS. Their consequences are suddenly wiped clean because of brown vs board? Once again, this is the institution you put your faith in. Guess you have to because you can’t get people to go along so you and your ilk have to switch to oligarchy to get your agenda through?

It’s certainly not OK but the court couldn’t change the past so what are they left to do when Brown came up?

It address’s the post slavery/reconstruction era where former slaves didn’t have standing to sue because they were not citizens. That was major thrust in proposing the 14A, not blacks wanting same sex marriage.

So yes, it has all the relevance to our discussion.

Why the Fourteenth Amendment came about isn’t important, what is says is.

Besides, no one has proven homosexuality to be normal. It’s based on emotion and emotion can’t decide law.

b1jetmech on June 7, 2014 at 1:11 AM

Define “normal”.

What’s based on emotion? Emotion doesn’t decide law, the Constitution does. I’d much rather have that deciding what’s law than any one person’s interpretation of their preferred religious texts being the decider.

alchemist19 on June 7, 2014 at 2:52 PM

It was a statement of principles of the Second Continental Congress. There are some great principles in there but it does NOT carry the force of law today. Even if your rather interesting yet unsupported statement about there being no Constitution without the DOI is true that does not mean the principles of the DOI are law.

Let me keep it simple so you may understand. Without the DOI there would be no country and Constitution for that matter. The BOI was a bold step not only for our newly formed country but for the world because no other time had a republic such as ours been formed.

Somehow, you excuse it as “propaganda” and you might as well call it toilet paper because the only item your focused on is a bastardized version of the 14A…nothing else.

It’s interesting then that when they wrote the Constitution to protect those principles they left so many of them out.

Because of the 10th Amendment. Federal government doesn’t need to be involved in everything, that’s what leads to dictatorships. The homosexuals have jumped on this bandwagon for the single issue voters they are.

Originally it limited the power of the federal government over the states and the people, subsequent amendments also limited the power of the states over the people. And it doesn’t matter where the rights come from

It matters as the day and night. If our rights come from “man” then “man” can take them away. If our rights come from God and not man then man cannot take them away for it is not appointed by mere men to grant us rights because we can lose them as fast as we get them. While the Founders recognized that are rights are inalienable and are God given so shlub like Obama cannot remove them no matter what his ideology is. Also, having God given rights enables the population to not put their faith into a president who would attempts a dictatorship for they know better to entrust their freedom to a fallible man.

Homosexuality.

Ummm, that’s not a religion.

Since your wroldview revolves around these actions, I say…Yeah! it’s a religion. Heck, many homes are forcing acceptance onto populations in other states through school indoctrination, diversity training, getting rid of anyone who opposes it(hello Mozilla)it’s a religion along with being an ideology.

Someone as ignorant of the law as you trying to accuse me of a lack of civics knowledge makes your claims ring a bit hollow. More than a bit, in fact.

There’s nothing about interracial marriage in the Constitution. But there is a guarantee for equal protection. There was no debate about whether or not people were not being treated equally, the question was whether or not the unequal treatment could be justified. In the end it could not and so the state marriage laws were struck down. Virginia and the other states could have kept their prohibition on interracial marriage in place if they had stopped recognizing all marriages because there is no explicit right to interracial marriage but because the state wants to recognize marriages they were obligated to do so equally. You’re welcome for the legal history lesson. Now you’ve got some homework to do.

alchemist19 on June 7, 2014 at 2:42 PM

Interracial marriage has nothing to do with homosexuality because of skin color vs sexual behavior that cannot be mentally measured in the likes of homosexuals. The homosexual lobby has pretty stole the civil rights movement or “Copy & Paste” to play the victim.

Like SCOTUS legalizing abortion, the courts had to “make up” an constitutional guarantee by claiming a “right to privacy”. That is not in the Constitution so the SCOTUS at the time just make it up to legalize abortion. Same thing with homosexual marriage. The courts had to twist some law or amendment into a pretzel to the ruling they desired. What better way to claim something Constitutional then to get a one size fits all twist on 14A and make it justify anything any bogus civil rights movement.

b1jetmech on June 7, 2014 at 3:06 PM

The Tenth Amendment wasn’t added to. The list of powers prohibited to the states (which is NOT listed in the Tenth Amendment!) was added to by the Fourteenth Amendment, and because the Tenth already specified the states don’t have the powers which the Constitution forbids them from having, any mention to modification of the Tenth by the Fourteenth would have been redundant.

You’re right that the Fourteenth Amendment did give the federal government the power to trump a tyrannical state government abusing the rights of the people, but the states agreed to give the federal government that power when they ratified the Fourteenth Amendment so if they’re unhappy they only have themselves to blame

The whole Constitution almost got scrapped in 1787 because Mason didn’t see enough protections for the sovereign states until the ideal of the Bill of Rights specifically the 10thA was added. There were originally 11 amendments proposed but 10 were ratified in the Bill of Rights.

It’s certainly not OK but the court couldn’t change the past so what are they left to do when Brown came up?

The momentum was already building for civil rights. The court didn’t have to take the case because the congress was about to do it self. You will see that we can solve our own problems without the twisted rulings from activist judges.

Why the Fourteenth Amendment came about isn’t important, what is says is.

b1jetmech on June 7, 2014 at 3:11 PM

Darn it, I hit the wrong button…

Why the Fourteenth Amendment came about isn’t important, what is says is.

That goes for the whole Constitution too? Is the Constitution living and breathing? Liberals think so, do you want to live in a society where the Constitution evolves to mean anything and lose it’s teeth in limiting the Federal government?

Define “normal”.

What’s based on emotion? Emotion doesn’t decide law, the Constitution does. I’d much rather have that deciding what’s law than any one person’s interpretation of their preferred religious texts being the decider.

alchemist19 on June 7, 2014 at 2:52 PM

Have a small fringe minority declaring to the rest the country their lifestyle is “normal” because they “feel” that way doesn’t cut it for enacting law on their behalf. Peoples emotions come and go, go up and down. People will do almost anything by their emotions especially if their emotions are not restrained.

As far as “Religious texts” goes, I like the verse that says in Judges 17:6

“when there is no King, the people will do what is right in their own eyes”

This is what happens when we govern with out Godly morality. Everyone does what they think in their own indulgences. Which leads to societal breakdown.

b1jetmech on June 7, 2014 at 3:21 PM

verbaluce on June 7, 2014 at 7:12 AM

Ah, yes, the HA logician verbaluce declaring something is lame. Pardon me if I don’t find that compelling.

There is no “right” to something that does not exist. Homosexual “marriage” cannot exist because marriage has a distinct definition. Interracial marriage can exist because the two parties meet the requirements (one man, one woman). It is interesting to note that homosexuals weren’t satisfied with the idea of civil unions, which would provide the “rights” and benefits you seem to think they can attain no other way. That’s because this isn’t about rights at all–it’s about legitimizing them by stigmatizing those who find their lifestyle unacceptable.

As I am considerably younger than 100, I have never witnessed women not having the vote, but I have witnessed the disastrous way so many women do vote. As a woman, I would give up my vote if all my moronic “sisters” had to give up theirs.

A private business is not public. They offer services to others if they choose, but the business owner alone bears the burdens of the business–the risks, the failures, and the successes. If a business wants to refuse me for any reason–female, brown hair, too tall–it is their right. If I don’t like it, I go elsewhere. That is a little concept known as freedom, which clearly grates you, as it does all the tyrannical left.

DrMagnolias on June 7, 2014 at 3:54 PM

Our nation was born with the signing of the DOI. The men who wrote and signed that document are our “founders” The men who wrote the Constitution were representatives from the states who gathered for the purpose of writing the rules by which we would be governed. They didn’t disregard the DOI and they did not throw out its principles, they wrote the Constitution to protect them.

It’s interesting then that when they wrote the Constitution to protect those principles they left so many of them out

alchemist19 on June 7, 2014 at 2:42 PM

You do understand that you can build ideals on principles of one document and still protect them within another. You can expand on them without citing chapter and verse every one of the ideals you are building upon.
The ideals of the DOI made it clear that the rights of men are inherent and that the roll of government was to ensure those rights, to allow men to pursue liberty and to live and grow freely and doing so they would find happiness to the best of their ability.
The Constitution was written to…

Form a more perfect Union establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the “Blessings of Liberty” to ourselves and our posterity

All well within the guiding principles of the DOI.
The DOI is the What and Why of our Union, the Constitution is the How, our posterity is the When

I want to be clear I am not arguing for or against the issue of gay marriage, in this post. I am defending the DOI from your slanderous claim the the DOI was only an instrument of propaganda. that as such it is unrelated to our current law and therefore dismissible in this, and by extension any, augment of rights or law.

Gwillie on June 7, 2014 at 4:06 PM

The Supreme Court disagrees. See Loving v. Virginia.

“Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival…. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law.”

urban elitist on June 6, 2014 at 6:55 PM

The Virginia Racial Integrity Act of 1924, did not ban interracial marriage. It only banned marriage between “white people” and any other race:

It shall hereafter be unlawful for any white person in this State to marry any save a white person, or a person with no other admixture of blood than white and American Indian. For the purpose of this act, the term “white person” shall apply only to the person who has no trace whatsoever of any blood other than Caucasian; but persons who have one-sixteenth or less of the blood of the American Indian and have no other non-Caucasic blood shall be deemed to be white persons.

There was the unequal protection: white people were the ones prohibited from intermarrying with other races. The Act had nothing to say about “negroes” marrying “Mongolians” or a “Malay” marrying “any other non-Caucasic strains.”

And of course, it was a given that marriage was between a man and a woman, otherwise why wouldn’t the Supreme Court allow SSM right then?

No, there’s nothing about Civil Rights in SSM. As other have pointed out, gay men and lesbian women have married all through history — and never have hetero men been allowed to marry hetero men and ditto hetero women other hetero women, while gays were prevented from doing so.

This is a whole cloth redefinition of what marriage is. At least they should have the decency to admit so.

JamesS on June 7, 2014 at 5:18 PM

Poll: 50% say Equal Protection Clause of U.S. Constitution gives gays the right to marry

That clause can mean anything…like, not having to pay taxes and getting free money from the government.

Tis a wonderful clause.

Dr. ZhivBlago on June 7, 2014 at 5:35 PM

Leave them alone?! I would like nothing better, yet I keep having their demand for forced acceptance shoved in my face. There are a substantial number of homosexuals who are using judges to force people to associate with them (“Bake my wedding cake!” “Take pictures of my wedding ceremony!”). I would be happy to leave them alone, if they in turn would stop trying to make me “celebrate” them and pretend that something that by definition can never exist (gay “marriage”) is a “right.”

DrMagnolias on June 7, 2014 at 6:48 AM

.
This is one of the lamest of arguments – that we are fortunately starting to see less and less of.

verbaluce on June 7, 2014 at 7:12 AM

.
Wrong, on both counts.
.

Nothing is shoved in your face…your just shoving your face into their lives by advocating against equal rights for them.

verbaluce on June 7, 2014 at 7:12 AM

.
When people demand formal recognition and acceptance of that which we believe to be a disgrace, and disgusting, it most certainly is “shoving it in our face”.

Marriage is not a “right”.
.

Are you even aware of the benefits and rights marriage offers? They’re not asking to be allowed to kiss or argue about driving directions.

verbaluce on June 7, 2014 at 7:12 AM

.
Then get MARRIED . . . . . to someone of the ‘complimentary’ gender.

We have NO obligation to accept same sex marriage, whether our refusal causes an absence of “benefits” or not … But “rights” ? … What “rights”? … What “rights” do married couples experience, vs unmarried couples?
.

I suppose women were shoving it in your face when they wanted the right to vote?

verbaluce on June 7, 2014 at 7:12 AM

.
Being conceived and born as a female of the species is perfectly normal.
Homosexuality is not.
.

And interracial couples were shoving it in your face when they wanted the right to marry?

verbaluce on June 7, 2014 at 7:12 AM

.
There are people who still believe it’s wrong for people of differing ethnicity to marry and procreate, and to those people it probably would seem like “shoving it in your face.”
But I’m not one of them, and neither is God.
The term “interracial” is only for those people who believe the human race is subdivided into different sub-races, and I’m not one of those, either.
.

And providing services that a business publicly offers and advertises is not ‘celebrating’.

verbaluce on June 7, 2014 at 7:12 AM

.
It still constitutes “condoning”.

That’s all it takes to justify refusal.

listens2glenn on June 7, 2014 at 7:40 PM

Besides, no one has proven homosexuality to be normal. It’s based on emotion and emotion can’t decide law.

b1jetmech on June 7, 2014 at 1:11 AM

.
Define “normal”.

alchemist19 on June 7, 2014 at 2:52 PM

.
The Bible defines “normal” … period.
.

What’s based on emotion? Emotion doesn’t decide law, the Constitution does.
I’d much rather have that deciding what’s law than any one person’s interpretation of their preferred religious texts being the decider.

alchemist19 on June 7, 2014 at 2:52 PM

.
So would we . . . . . but if we disagree on what is or is not a “right”, then that doesn’t help much, does it?
.
Bottom line: the God of the Bible is the final arbiter of defining “normal”.

The government (on all levels, and in all branches) is not.

listens2glenn on June 7, 2014 at 7:54 PM

Good point. I like to add, if the people are so for it, then how come homosexual activist are going to the courts to overturn the will of people rather let the people or the legislatures vote on it?

b1jetmech on June 6, 2014 at 10:36 PM

.
Two reasons I can think of, one practical and one philosophical.

The practical reason is going to the courts is faster and cheaper. Going through the process of conducting a referendum and waging a campaign is costly and time-consuming, and you can’t get results until the next election.
Oregon was prepared to overturn their amendment by a vote but it would have taken until November to get it done. Nevada’s legislature has voted to overturn their state amendment but before it can go to the voters it must be voted on in another legislative session and then the campaign begins. The courts can handle the issue in a lot less time for a lot less money.

alchemist19 on June 6, 2014 at 10:54 PM

.
Being ‘slow’ was a very deliberate built-in mechanism to keep a short term government from imposing it’s will on the majority.

But have no fear . . . . . we’ll just get a JUDGE to decree it our way … no muss, no fuss.

At least you’re honest about your willingness to cheat the Constitution, to impose your Johnny-come-lately definition of “normal”.
.

The philosophical reason is that the courts have always been the guarantor of civil rights in this country. We didn’t end segregation by waiting for legislatures to vote on the matter or state amendments to pass, we did it through the court system. Protecting the rights of a minority from the tyranny of the majority is one of the things the courts are there for so really the courts here are just being asked to do their job.

alchemist19 on June 6, 2014 at 10:54 PM

.
B. S.Barbra Streisand.

The Courts are there to interpret the Constitution, whether it favors a minority or a majority.

A population of sober, and vigilant citizens practicing the Second Amendment is the ONLY “guarantor of civil rights in this country.”

listens2glenn on June 7, 2014 at 8:32 PM

And the main thing the government cannot do is get in the way of people’s faith.

Ummmm, no.

Yes. You can’t redefine the fact that our forefathers primarily came here to flee religious persecution, and that this country was based firmly and completely upon a belief in God, and that’s why freedom of religion is in the first amendment.

Bluster all you want, but the reality is there. And if you try to revise that part of history, why are you surprised when rational people simply ignore your other arguments as made up out of whole cloth?

The anti-Christian fanatics won’t win. They’ll win the hearts and minds of the journo-libs and the pajamaboys, but the people who actually have faith won’t be deterred by these attacks. They’ll turn the other cheek until they see their society (and thus their children) imperiled, and then they’ll take matters into their own hands again.

AJsDaddie on June 8, 2014 at 10:14 AM

You can’t redefine the fact that our forefathers primarily came here to flee religious persecution, and that this country was based firmly and completely upon a belief in God, and that’s why freedom of religion is in the first amendment.

AJsDaddie on June 8, 2014 at 10:14 AM

The first settlers in North America, beginning with the Mayflower, left Europe over religious persecution. They weren’t persecuted by atheists or anti-theists, their particular Christian faiths were persecuted by the larger Christian faiths of the state.

Our forefathers…the architects of the new republic that began our nation…forged our independence from British crown rule, unfair taxation and trade restrictions, etc…it was not about religious persecution. They did address religion in the Constitution, which stated there would be no state religion, nor prohibiting citizens from practicing their own faiths.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it require US citizens practice a belief in God. And our forefathers very carefully and intentionally left religion out of the state. This is a nation meant for all free men and women…regardless of any faith, or no faith at all.

JetBoy on June 8, 2014 at 10:47 AM

Nowhere in the Constitution does it require US citizens practice a belief in God. And our forefathers very carefully and intentionally left religion out of the state. This is a nation meant for all free men and women…regardless of any faith, or no faith at all.

JetBoy on June 8, 2014 at 10:47 AM

But it does NOT allow the non-religious to force their opinion upon others, which is what has been happening consistently especially over the last couple of decades.

Abortion, homosexuality, single motherhood; the atheists and progressives and gay activists continually present these as things to be celebrated, and those that do not proclaim the goodness of the Progressive Utopia are backwoods Bible thumping idiots.

That is exactly antithetical to what the Founders intended, and people are getting pretty tired of it.

If a baker doesn’t want to bake a cake for a gay wedding, he has broken no law and infringed on no right. And every time the activists force those issues by whining to the courts, the closer we are to a strong and unreserved backlash.

The pendulum swings, and I daresay it’s poised to swing again.

AJsDaddie on June 8, 2014 at 2:09 PM

The first settlers in North America, beginning with the Mayflower, left Europe over religious persecution. They weren’t persecuted by atheists or anti-theists, their particular Christian faiths were persecuted by the larger Christian faiths of the state.

JetBoy on June 8, 2014 at 10:47 AM

.
That much is true, but irrelevant to the argument of “same-sex marriage”.
.

Our forefathers…the architects of the new republic that began our nation…forged our independence from British crown rule, unfair taxation and trade restrictions, etc…it was not about religious persecution. They did address religion in the Constitution, which stated there would be no state religion, nor prohibiting citizens from practicing their own faiths.

JetBoy on June 8, 2014 at 10:47 AM

.
That doesn’t make using the standards of morality from the Bible as the standards of judging acceptable societal behavior a violation of the First Amendment.
.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it require US citizens practice a belief in God.

JetBoy on June 8, 2014 at 10:47 AM

.
Irrelevant to the argument of “same-sex” marriage.
.

And our forefathers very carefully and intentionally left religion out of the state.

JetBoy on June 8, 2014 at 10:47 AM

.
.
No … they … didn’t . . . . . . . . They left the State out of religion, but very much kept the recognition of God in the State.

They fully intended for Christianity (all denominations) to influence government, but not the other way around.
.

This is a nation meant for all free men and women…regardless of any faith, or no faith at all.

JetBoy on June 8, 2014 at 10:47 AM

.
There is no such thing as “no faith at all”. If you have no recognition of a higher power and authority than Mankind then you effectively make yourself your own God. You are setting yourself up to believe that your own mind is sufficient and capable of establishing your own standards of morality, without undue conflict with other people . . . . . IT CAN’T BE DONE.

That’s why the Bible standards of morality were accepted by everyone, including atheists from the ratifying of the Constitution, until the (expletive) ‘Warren Court’.

listens2glenn on June 8, 2014 at 2:30 PM

Comment pages: 1 2