Same-sex marriage coming to Utah

[Flystripper]

That poem is really gay.

I liked it, and I am ok with that.

[SeattleUte]

Think again, senor Aggy. SU's favorite Mormon is prepared to give his life in support of this noble cause.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...usaolp00000009

he's not my favorite Mormon but he's a real Mormon unlike you jellyfish progressive Mormons.

[imanihonjin]

Does this mean that you think that Loving v Virginia (which held that laws banning interracial marriage were unconstitutional) was wrongly decided? As I understand your theory, since interracial marriage (or marriage of any kind) is discussed in the Constitution, it isn't protected by the Constitution.

Good question. Interracial marriage is not discussed in the Constitution but equal protection is. Many argue that equal protection applies to sexual orientation matters just like it does interracial matters, but I don't believe it does as the 14th Amendment was ratified in response to the Emancipation Proclamation and was passed to deal with racial discrimination. Thus race related issues such as interracial marriage are given special protection under the 14th Amendment. When the 14th Amendment was ratified, nobody considered sexual orientation to be covered by the 14th Amendment and to apply it in that way is essentially amending the constitution by the judges/justices involved in such a decision.

[Jeff Lebowski]

he's not my favorite Mormon but he's a real Mormon unlike you jellyfish progressive Mormons.

That's easy for you to say, sitting in the comfort of your chair in Tacoma, Washington. Being a jellyfish is hard work!

[Flystripper]

If he wants to save face, he should just claim to not know why he started fasting in the beginning, but that the important thing is that he isn't fasting anymore currently.

well done

[TripletDaddy]

he's not my favorite Mormon but he's a real Mormon unlike you jellyfish progressive Mormons.

I prefer to think of myself as a gadfly, inciting change from within.

[Non Sequitur]

he's not my favorite Mormon but he's a real Mormon unlike you jellyfish progressive Mormons.

Jellyfish have been around for half a billion years. You're fighting a losing battle.

[Pheidippides]

That's easy for you to say, sitting in the comfort of your chair in Tacoma, Washington. Being a jellyfish is hard work!

You forgot the part about drinking an appletini.

[SeattleUte]

That's easy for you to say, sitting in the comfort of your chair in Tacoma, Washington. Being a jellyfish is hard work!

I'm not from Tacoma!

[SeattleUte]

You forgot the part about drinking an appletini.

I don't drink those!

[old_gregg]

Good question. Interracial marriage is not discussed in the Constitution but equal protection is. Many argue that equal protection applies to sexual orientation matters just like it does interracial matters, but I don't believe it does as the 14th Amendment was ratified in response to the Emancipation Proclamation and was passed to deal with racial discrimination. Thus race related issues such as interracial marriage are given special protection under the 14th Amendment. When the 14th Amendment was ratified, nobody considered sexual orientation to be covered by the 14th Amendment and to apply it in that way is essentially amending the constitution by the judges/justices involved in such a decision.

i suspect that in spite of your noble commitment to strict originalism, you might support a broad reading of the second amendment. times and facts change; when language as plain as the 14th amendment is available, founders' intent/legislative context are tools of bigotry.

[New Mexican Disaster]

Good question. Interracial marriage is not discussed in the Constitution but equal protection is. Many argue that equal protection applies to sexual orientation matters just like it does interracial matters, but I don't believe it does as the 14th Amendment was ratified in response to the Emancipation Proclamation and was passed to deal with racial discrimination. Thus race related issues such as interracial marriage are given special protection under the 14th Amendment. When the 14th Amendment was ratified, nobody considered sexual orientation to be covered by the 14th Amendment and to apply it in that way is essentially amending the constitution by the judges/justices involved in such a decision.

Was gender or age discrimination considered to be covered by the 14th amendment, at that time? Or only those classes that were thought of at the time were eligible to covered by equal protection?

[Katy Lied]

i suspect that in spite of your noble commitment to strict originalism, you might support a broad reading of the second amendment. times and facts change; when language as plain as the 14th amendment is available, founders' intent/legislative context are tools of bigotry.

yikes!

[Topper]

Was gender or age discrimination considered to be covered by the 14th amendment, at that time? Or only those classes that were thought of at the time were eligible to covered by equal protection?

Under a strict constructionist perspective, if it wasn't considered, you need another amendment. That way a minority can hold up modifications.

OTOH, I support the current interpretations of the Second Amendment and I don't want the judges to ignore the historical meaning of the Second Amendment and be able to unwrite the Amendment, which a majority be wont to do.

[Topper]

I'm not from Tacoma!

I always thought you were from Redmond, but you are really from Renton?