Obergefell v. Hodges is a classic case of judicial tyranny, its date will live in infamy

[johnwk]

For those who are dedicated supporters and defenders of the miracle our forefathers created (the Constitution of the United States of America), the MAJORITY’S OPINION in Obergefell v. Hodges, handed down June 26, 2015, like a number of previous “precedent” setting opinions, will long be remember as another significant and major attack on the fundamental rules used to preserve and protect that Constitution.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was absolutely correct when he emphatically stated a “. . . precedent should be of our legal tradition, and our country and our laws, and be based on something – not just something somebody dreamt up and others went along with.” SOURCE

With respect to fundamental rules used to determine the true and actual meaning of our Constitution, as it was understood by those who framed it and the States and people therein when ratifying it, the majority’s opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges casts such rules aside and substituted its own sexual oriented feels and predilections for the rule of law and reversed the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit which appropriately upheld, on November 6, 2014, Kentucky’s ban on same-sex marriage

Nowhere in the majority opinion, Obergefell v. Hodges, is there a shred of evidence confirming that by the terms of the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection or due process clause, or the documented legislative intent under which the Fourteenth Amendment was agreed to by the States when ratifying the amendment, was Kentucky‘s decision to not issue same-sex marriage licenses in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Justice Kennedy in authoring the opinion simply went on and on, page after page, with irrelevant platitudes and historical notations having nothing to do with the debates of the 39th Congress which actually framed and helped to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment in order to “. . . discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it." See, HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

Unlike Israel’s “Basic Law” which states “There shall be no violation of rights under its Basic Law except by a law befitting the values of the State of Israel, enacted for a proper purpose, and to an extent no greater than is required “, which in effect makes rights and limited powers granted meaningless, the Constitution of the United States contains no grant of such omnipotent authority to our federal government, and that includes an un-elected majority sitting on our Supreme Court.

In essence, a majority on our Supreme Court set itself up as members of an unelected, omnipotent, constitutional convention, and substituted their personal feelings and predilections as being within the terms and conditions under which the Fourteenth Amendment was agreed to, while Article V is the only lawful way to alter our Constitution, and it requires consent of the States and people therein as outlined therein.

Have three-fourths of the States and people therein agreed to cast aside the traditional meaning of marriage, which dates back 4,000 years, and forbid the States to issue marriage licenses based upon the applicant’s sex?

JWK


Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records _ its framing and ratification debates which give context to its text _ wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to apply the Humpty Dumpty theory of language to our Constitution and make it mean whatever they wish it to mean.

 

[spudea]

It's pretty clear equal protection of the law applies. If the government is involved in issuing marriage licenses, they must do so indiscriminately. The real issue is the government shouldn't be involved, but opponents don't want to get into that because there is a lot the government shouldn't be involved in.

 

[johnwk]

It's pretty clear equal protection of the law applies. If the government is involved in issuing marriage licenses, they must do so indiscriminately. The real issue is the government shouldn't be involved, but opponents don't want to get into that because there is a lot the government shouldn't be involved in.

I appreciate your opinion concerning the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause, but it is not supported by the text of the Fourteenth Amendment, nor the documented legislative intent for which the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted.

The text of the Fourteenth Amendment states: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person [singular] of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person [singular] within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

So, according to the text of the Fourteenth Amendment, no “person” [singular] is denied the equal protection under Kentucky's marriage law as is required by the terms of the Fourteenth Amendment. Every person is treated EQUAL.

Now, as to the legislative intent of the Fourteen Amendment, as summarized by one of its supporters during its framing by the 39th Congress:


“Its whole effect is not to confer or regulate rights, but to require that whatever of these enumerated rights and obligations are imposed by State laws shall be for and upon all citizens alike without distinctions based on race or former condition of slavery…It permits the States to say that the wife may not testify, sue or contract. It makes no law as to this. Its whole effect is to require that whatever rights as to each of the enumerated civil (not political) matters the States may confer upon one race or color of the citizens shall be held by all races in equality…It does not prohibit you from discriminating between citizens of the same race, or of different races, as to what their rights to testify, to inherit &c. shall be. But if you do discriminate, it must not be on account of race, color or former conditions of slavery. That is all. If you permit a white man who is an infidel to testify, so you must a colored infidel. Self-evidently this is the whole effect of this first section. It secures-not to all citizens, but to all races as races who are citizens- equality of protection in those enumerated civil rights which the States may deem proper to confer upon any race.” ___ SEE: Representative Shallabarger, a supporter of the amendment, Congressional Globe, 1866, page 1293


As I pointed out, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals correctly held that Kentucky was under no constitutional obligation to license or recognize same-sex marriages, effectively upholding Kentucky’s Constitutional Amendment:

“Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.”

Nowhere in the majority opinion, Obergefell v. Hodges, is there a shred of evidence confirming that by the terms of the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection or due process clause, or the documented legislative intent under which the Fourteenth Amendment was agreed to by the States when ratifying the amendment, was Kentucky‘s decision to not issue same-sex marriage licenses in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

 

[Invisible Man]

It's pretty clear equal protection of the law applies. If the government is involved in issuing marriage licenses, they must do so indiscriminately. The real issue is the government shouldn't be involved, but opponents don't want to get into that because there is a lot the government shouldn't be involved in.

If men and women both had equal rights to get marriage licenses to be married to members of the opposite sex, then that is equal protection under the law.

 

[spudea]

If men and women both had equal rights to get marriage licenses to be married to members of the opposite sex, then that is equal protection under the law.

That's like saying the law could be only issue marriage licenses to a white couple and not to a black/white couple. You create an irrelevant distinction based on prejudice and call it equal protection of the law. No that's not how equal protection works. This was part of the Hodges case, in order to deny a same-sex marriage license, the state had to prove they had a good reason treat same-sex couples differently, the state failed to provide a legitimate reason.

 

[Invisible Man]

That's like saying the law could be only issue marriage licenses to a white couple and not to a black/white couple. You create an irrelevant distinction based on prejudice and call it equal protection of the law. No that's not how equal protection works. This was part of the Hodges case, in order to deny a same-sex marriage license, the state had to prove they had a good reason treat same-sex couples differently, the state failed to provide a legitimate reason.

What irrelevant distinction did I make?

 

[johnwk]

What irrelevant distinction did I make?

Actually, you were spot on and the time line from the Fourteenth Amendment forward proves you are correct!


Let us look at the associated historical time line for the truth and facts.

On July 9th, 1868 the Fourteenth Amendment is adopted, the first Section reading as follows:

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

Note that there is no language concerning any restriction based upon “sex”.

In 1870, two years later, the Fifteenth Amendment is passed prohibiting the right to vote to be denied based upon “race, color or previous condition of servitude”. Note once again there continues to be no restrictive referenced in our Constitution with respect to “sex”.

Fifty years later, on August 18th, 1920, the American People decide to provide restrictive language into our Constitution concerning “sex” by their adoption of the Nineteenth Amendment. But the amendment is narrowly worded and limits the protection against “sex” discriminations as follows:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

At this very time there is an active movement in the United States to adopt an “Equal Rights Amendment” and it persists for decades. The proposed amendment is intentionally designed to prohibit distinctions based upon “sex” as follows:

Section 1. Equality of Rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of sex.

In the 1970s, Congress sets a seven year deadline for the ratification of the ERA which was later extended by three years to 1982. But despite efforts to secure ratification of the amendment, a sufficient number of States wisely refuse to adopt the Equal Rights Amendment. Some of the reasons for its rejection were, it would lead to women being drafted into the military, unisex bathrooms, and even legalization of homosexual marriages.

So, having reviewed the historical evidence, it become obvious a majority on our Supreme Court falsely asserted the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees a right to same-sex marriages.

JWK

Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records _ its framing and ratification debates which give context to its text _ wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to apply the Humpty Dumpty theory of language to our Constitution and make it mean whatever they wish it to mean.

 

[johnwk]

Why the majority opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges needs to be revisited and overturned.

Obergefell v. Hodges reversed the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit which appropriately upheld, on November 6, 2014 Kentucky’s ban on same-sex marriage.

Some of the glaring problems with the majority opinion in Obergefell are:

• The opinion relies upon irrelevant platitudes and historical notations to arrive at its conclusions, rather than the debates of the 39th Congress which actually framed the Fourteenth Amendment to accomplish specific and limited objectives, which the majority opinion falsely asserts have been violated.

• While the majority opinion relies upon irrelevant platitudes and historical notations to arrive at its conclusion, it blatantly ignores the historical definition of marriage within Western culture, which dates back to the 6th and 9th centuries as being a union between one man and one woman. Hence, the majority opinion contradicts its own method used to arrive at its conclusion.

• The majority opinion knowingly flaunts and subjugates Article V of the Constitution requiring consent of the governed, which is the only lawful and democratic way, within the terms of our Constitution, to accommodate and acknowledge changing times.

• The majority’s opinion blatantly ignores and renders meaningless the Tenth Amendment's powers reserved to the States and people therein.

• The majority opinion blatantly assumed a legislative authority not granted by the terms and conditions set forth in the Constitution. In essence, a majority on our Supreme Court set itself up as members of an unelected, omnipotent, constitutional convention, and substituted their personal feelings and predilections as being within the terms and conditions under which the Fourteenth Amendment was agreed to.

• The proposed Equal Rights Amendment, which would have forbid the States to make distinctions in law based upon sex, was rejected in 1982 by an insufficient number of States approving the amendment.

A precedent setting case, as Justice Thomas correctly points out, “. . . should be respectful of our legal tradition, and our country and our laws, and be based on something – not just something somebody dreamt up and others went along with . . . ” which is exactly what the majority opinion Justices did when agreeing with Justice Kennedy who authored the majority opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges.

 

[jmdrake]

Pretty much every argument made against Obergefell can also be made against Loving v Virginia. And pretty much every argument made for Obergefell can also be made for Loving v Virginia.

Arguments against Loving:

• The 14th amendment doesn't mention race.
• Race was mentioned in the 15th amendment for the right to vote just like sex was mentined in the 19th amendment right to vote.
• Virginia argued in loving that equal protection under the law was met because blacks could marry blacks and whites could marry whites.
• It's clear that legalizing interracial marriage was not the purpose of the 14th amendment as there was no effort to repeal miscegenation laws for the next 100 years.

Arguments for Loving:

• The state never articulated a genuine purpose for the anti miscegenation laws.
• The actual purpose was clearly discriminatory
• SCOTUS had already ruled "separate but equal" in Brown v Board of Education violated the 14th amendment

I can't think of any arguments against Obergefell that don't apply to Loving from the constitutional or actual legal precedent. To make the distinction you have to go outside the law and look at ancient history as well as modern sensibilities. Biblically speaking Moses had a black wife. Some translations say "Kushite" and some say "Ethiopian" but clearly she was black and Miriam was struck with leporasy for speaking against this. I know racists will try to argue against this by saying "Ziporah was a Midianite" based on her father Jethro being the high priest of Midian. That ignores the possibility that Jethro married a Kushite or that Moses had a wife other than Ziporah either as a second wife or a divorce and remarriage. As for modern sensibilities, only the open racists like Nick Fuentes will argue against "race mixing." Clarence Thomas married a white person just like many (most?) prominent black conservatives. (Candace Owens, the Hodge Twins, Officer Tatum, Tim Scott, Byron Donalds) But from 1664 to 1967 there was no recognized right of interracial marriage. That's 300 years of history, over 100 of which predate the founding of the United States.

 

[johnwk]

Pretty much every argument made against Obergefell can also be made against Loving v Virginia. And pretty much every argument made for Obergefell can also be made for Loving v Virginia.

Loving v Virginia involved discrimination based upon race which was intended to be prohibited by the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The legislative intent of the Fourteenth Amendment was summarized as follows by Representative Shellabarger:

“Its whole effect is not to confer or regulate rights, but to require that whatever of these enumerated rights and obligations are imposed by State laws shall be for and upon all citizens alike without distinctions based on race or former condition of slavery…It permits the States to say that the wife may not testify, sue or contract. It makes no law as to this. Its whole effect is to require that whatever rights as to each of the enumerated civil (not political) matters the States may confer upon one race or color of the citizens shall be held by all races in equality…It does not prohibit you from discriminating between citizens of the same race, or of different races, as to what their rights to testify, to inherit &c. shall be. But if you do discriminate, it must not be on account of race, color or former conditions of slavery. That is all. If you permit a white man who is an infidel to testify, so you must a colored infidel. Self-evidently this is the whole effect of this first section. It secures-not to all citizens, but to all races as races who are citizens- equality of protection in those enumerated civil rights which the States may deem proper to confer upon any race.” ___ SEE: Representative Shellabarger, a supporter of the Fourteenth Amendment, Congressional Globe, March 9th, 1866, page 1293


". . . nor deny to any person [singular] within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The fact is, no person under Kentucky's marriage amendment is denied the equal protection of the law.

“Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.”


A man may marry a woman and Kentucky’s constitutional amendment recognizes it as a “marriage”.

A woman may marry a man and Kentucky’s constitutional amendment recognizes it as a “marriage”.

A gay man may marry a woman and Kentucky’s constitutional amendment recognizes it as a “marriage”.

A gay woman may marry a man and Kentucky’s constitutional amendment recognizes it as a “marriage”.

So, as it turns out, no “person” is denied the equal protection under Kentucky’s law. Every person is treated EQUAL.

The Fourteenth Amendment does not read:

". . . nor deny to any homosexual [singular] within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The Fourteenth Amendment does not read:

". . . nor deny to any heterosexual [singular] within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The Fourteenth Amendment explicitly declares :

". . . nor deny to any person [singular] within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

You seem to forget the proposed Equal Rights Amendment, which would have forbid the States to make distinctions in law based upon sex, was rejected in 1982 by an insufficient number of States approving the amendment.

 

[jmdrake]

Loving v Virginia involved discrimination based upon race which was intended to be prohibited by the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The legislative intent of the Fourteenth Amendment was summarized as follows by Representative Shellabarger:

“Its whole effect is not to confer or regulate rights, but to require that whatever of these enumerated rights and obligations are imposed by State laws shall be for and upon all citizens alike without distinctions based on race or former condition of slavery…It permits the States to say that the wife may not testify, sue or contract. It makes no law as to this. Its whole effect is to require that whatever rights as to each of the enumerated civil (not political) matters the States may confer upon one race or color of the citizens shall be held by all races in equality…It does not prohibit you from discriminating between citizens of the same race, or of different races, as to what their rights to testify, to inherit &c. shall be. But if you do discriminate, it must not be on account of race, color or former conditions of slavery. That is all. If you permit a white man who is an infidel to testify, so you must a colored infidel. Self-evidently this is the whole effect of this first section. It secures-not to all citizens, but to all races as races who are citizens- equality of protection in those enumerated civil rights which the States may deem proper to confer upon any race.” ___ SEE: Representative Shellabarger, a supporter of the Fourteenth Amendment, Congressional Globe, March 9th, 1866, page 1293


". . . nor deny to any person [singular] within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The fact is, no person under Kentucky's marriage amendment is denied the equal protection of the law.

“Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.”


A man may marry a woman and Kentucky’s constitutional amendment recognizes it as a “marriage”.

A woman may marry a man and Kentucky’s constitutional amendment recognizes it as a “marriage”.

A gay man may marry a woman and Kentucky’s constitutional amendment recognizes it as a “marriage”.

A gay woman may marry a man and Kentucky’s constitutional amendment recognizes it as a “marriage”.

So, as it turns out, no “person” is denied the equal protection under Kentucky’s law. Every person is treated EQUAL.

The Fourteenth Amendment does not read:

". . . nor deny to any homosexual [singular] within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The Fourteenth Amendment does not read:

". . . nor deny to any heterosexual [singular] within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The Fourteenth Amendment explicitly declares :

". . . nor deny to any person [singular] within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

You seem to forget the proposed Equal Rights Amendment, which would have forbid the States to make distinctions in law based upon sex, was rejected in 1982 by an insufficient number of States approving the amendment.

You're ignoring the fact that:

1) The fourteenth amendment does not mention race
2) For a solid 100 years after the passage of the 14th amendment, many states still criminalized interracial marriage.

Clearly those who passed the 14th amendment had zero intention of allowing interracial marriage. How can you claim you're standing on the intent of the 14th amendment while simultaneously ignoring it?

Edit: And just for kicks, I asked AI for a list of cases where sex discrimination was overturned based on the 14th amendment. Would you revisit all of these cases too?

Landmark Supreme Court decisions striking sex-based state laws or state action​

1971 —​

• Law / policy: Idaho required a mandatory preference for “males” over “females” when appointing estate administrators.
• Result: Struck down as violating Equal Protection.
• Case: Reed v. Reed, 404 U.S. 71 (1971). Justia Law+1

1975 —​

• Law / policy: Utah set majority at 21 for males and 18 for females (as applied to child-support obligations).
• Result: Struck down under Equal Protection.
• Case: Stanton v. Stanton, 421 U.S. 7 (1975). Justia Law+1

1976 —​

• Law / policy: Oklahoma allowed women to buy 3.2% beer at 18, but required men to be 21.
• Result: Struck down; this is the famous case that cemented intermediate scrutiny for sex classifications (“important governmental objectives” + “substantially related”).
• Case: Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (1976). Justia Law+1

1979 —​

• Law / policy: Alabama’s alimony statutes imposed obligations on husbands but not wives.
• Result: Struck down under Equal Protection.
• Case: Orr v. Orr, 440 U.S. 268 (1979). Justia Law+1

1980 —​

• Law / policy: Missouri conditioned a widower’s death benefits on incapacity or dependency proof, while widows got benefits without the same showing.
• Result: Struck down under Equal Protection.
• Case: Wengler v. Druggists Mut. Ins. Co., 446 U.S. 142 (1980). Justia Law+1

1981 —​

• Law / policy: Louisiana’s “head and master” rule gave the husband unilateral control over certain marital/community property decisions.
• Result: Struck down under Equal Protection.
• Case: Kirchberg v. Feenstra, 450 U.S. 455 (1981). Justia Law+1

1982 —​

• Law / policy: Mississippi University for Women’s nursing program excluded men.
• Result: Struck down under Equal Protection.
• Case: Mississippi Univ. for Women v. Hogan, 458 U.S. 718 (1982). Justia Law+1

1994 —​

• Law / policy (state action): Using peremptory challenges to exclude jurors because they are men or women.
• Result: Struck down: Equal Protection prohibits intentional gender discrimination by state actors in jury selection.
• Case: J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B., 511 U.S. 127 (1994). Justia Law+2{{meta.siteName}}+2

1996 —​

• Law / policy (state action): Virginia’s public military college (VMI) admitted men only.
• Result: Struck down under Equal Protection; the Court required an “exceedingly persuasive justification.”
• Case: United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996). Justia Law+2Constitution Center+2

 

[johnwk]

You're ignoring the fact that:

1) The fourteenth amendment does not mention race

I am not ignoring anything. Our Constitutional system requires the text of our constitution to be followed and its documented "legislative intent" which gives context to its text.

Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records ___ its framing and ratification debates which give context to its text ___ wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to apply the Humpty Dumpty theory of language to our Constitution and make it mean whatever they wish it to mean.

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less.”

“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master-that’s all.”


I certainly agree with Justice Thomas who stated ". . . the precedent should be respectful of our legal tradition, and our country and our laws, and be based on something – not just something somebody dreamt up and others went along with.”

 

[jmdrake]

I am not ignoring anything. Our Constitutional system requires the text of our constitution to be followed and its documented "legislative intent" which gives context to its text.

Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records ___ its framing and ratification debates which give context to its text ___ wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to apply the Humpty Dumpty theory of language to our Constitution and make it mean whatever they wish it to mean.

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less.”

“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master-that’s all.”


I certainly agree with Justice Thomas who stated ". . . the precedent should be respectful of our legal tradition, and our country and our laws, and be based on something – not just something somebody dreamt up and others went along with.”

Yes you are. You have not even addressed the fact that for over 100 years after the passage of the 14th amendment, Justice Thomas' marriage was illegal in many states. You can keep saying over and over agin "I'm not ignoring X" when you clearly are. Originally, for 100 years, equal protection under the law meant "separate but equal." Blacks could marry blacks. Whites could marry whites. Blacks could not marry whites and whites could not marry blacks. Blacks could go to black schools. Whites could go to white schools. Blacks could not go to white schools. (I'm not sure if there were any specific laws that said whites couldn't go to black schools, but I'm sure southern states would have passed such a law if that was needed to maintain the laws of keeping blacks out of white schools.) Loving v Virginia went beyond both the text and the historical intent of the 14th Amendment. Those are facts that you are ignoring that are written in the decision.

Also you may have responded before I editted to put in a list of cases that have struck down laws that discriminate on the basis of sex using the 14th amendment. Would you overturn all of those rulings? Yes or no?

 

[johnwk]

Yes you are. You have not even addressed the fact that for over 100 years after the passage of the 14th amendment, Justice Thomas' marriage was illegal in many states.

You are wandering. We are discussing the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment as applied to forbidding the states to make distinctions based upon sex.

Let us look at the associated historical time line for the truth and facts.

On July 9th, 1868 the Fourteenth Amendment is adopted, the first Section reading as follows:

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

Note that there is no language concerning any restriction based upon “sex”.

In 1870, two years later, the Fifteenth Amendment is passed prohibiting the right to vote to be denied based upon “race, color or previous condition of servitude”. Note once again there continues to be no restrictive referenced in our Constitution with respect to “sex”.

Fifty years later, on August 18th, 1920, the American People decide to provide restrictive language into our Constitution concerning “sex” by their adoption of the Nineteenth Amendment. But the amendment is narrowly worded and limits the protection against “sex” discriminations as follows:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

At this very time there is an active movement in the United States to adopt an “Equal Rights Amendment” and it persists for decades. The proposed amendment is intentionally designed to prohibit distinctions based upon “sex” as follows:

Section 1. Equality of Rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of sex.

In the 1970s, Congress sets a seven year deadline for the ratification of the ERA which was later extended by three years to 1982. But despite efforts to secure ratification of the amendment, a sufficient number of States wisely refuse to adopt the Equal Rights Amendment. Some of the reasons for its rejection were, it would lead to women being drafted into the military, unisex bathrooms, and even legalization of homosexual marriages.

So, having reviewed the historical evidence it becomes self-evident that Kentucky's marriage amendment does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment.

​

 

[jmdrake]

You are wandering. We are discussing the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment as applied to forbidding the states to make distinctions based upon sex.

No I'm not. You're not even making a serious attempt at refuting what I'm saying. You're just regurgitating the same false arguments over and over again. Let me know when you decide to be serious.

 

[johnwk]

No I'm not. You're not even making a serious attempt at refuting what I'm saying. You're just regurgitating the same false arguments over and over again. Let me know when you decide to be serious.

We are discussing the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment as applied to forbidding the states to make distinctions based upon sex.
Did I post any inaccurate information in the time line I presented?

 

[jmdrake]

We are discussing the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment as applied to forbidding the states to make distinctions based upon sex.
Did I post any inaccurate information in the time line I presented?

You're not serious. If you were you wouldn't keep re-posting the text of the 14th amendment to "prove" that it doesn't mention sex when nobody argued that it did. If you were serious you would address the fact that historically nobody argued the 14th amendment applied to anti miscegenation laws. If you were serious you would acknowledge that the fact that race was included in the 15th amendment is equal to the fact that sex was included in the 19th amendment. If you were serious you would address the long history of applying sex discrimnation to the 14th amendment and address whether you feel those rulings should be overturned. After all, either the 14th amendment applies to sex discrimination or it doesn't. Your entire thesis is dependent upon the idea that it doesn't which means, if you are serious, you have to look at the implications of that besides just gay marriage. If you had a time machine you could go back and tell the post Civil War congress "Make sure that the 14th amendment only applies to race, and if you want to do something for women later be sure to say that sexual orientation is not covered." Instead they made a very general amendment textually. Clarence Thomas claims to support textualism. Reading into the amendment what's not there in order to make sure it does what you want and doesn't do what you don't want isn't textualism.