I'm sorry if this sounds a bit /pol/, but I'm asking the question purely a legal one, not an ideological one: when banning gay marriage was made unconstitutional in the U.S., why wasn't it done by an Amendment to the Constitution instead of saying "The Constitution already says it!" Since slavery was banned through an Amendment, and women were given suffrage through an Amendment, wouldn't it be proper to follow the same procedure with gay marriage?
>>734881
>Read those verses
>Every claim in pic related is bullshit
>>734881
But it was banned through an amendment. Under the 14th amendment. There was no new amendment needed because the amendment ending the ban on gay marriage already existed.
The Bill of Rights is not an exhaustive list of rights, and it's not terribly uncommon for "new" rights to be affirmed through the courts. Privacy, for one example.
Also the post-Civil War Amendments are somewhat of an anomaly, and were expressly pressed through as a big "fuck you" to the South while they couldn't do anything about it.
>>734895
Some sort of justification like this could have similarly been done with slavery or women's suffrage. It makes more sense to just add to the law, rather than trying to apply a brand new interpretation which has zero precedent.
>>734897
No, it makes sense to add the Amendment against slavery, rather than saying, "Slavery was ALWAYS Unconstitutional."
>>734881
The supreme court essentially just interpreted the words of the constitution in a new way. The constitution provides for equal rights between men and women, so the supreme court claimed that if a woman has the right to marry a man, a man should also have the right to marry a man, and if a man has the right to marry a woman. then a woman should also have the right to marry a woman.
>>734949
>slavery could have been ended via the 14th amendment
A novel idea, but pretty damn ignorant, since the 13th amendment was the one that banned slavery.
As for women's suffrage, SCOTUS felt at the time that women were the property of their husbands, destined only to be housewives, and thus not subject to 14th amendment protections.
>>735012
Slavery was in the 3/5 clause of the constitution as legal, so an amendment would be needed to make it unconstitutional.
>>735507
Wrong, although Kennedy's shittily written majority opinion can certainly be confusing. So the reasoning behind the decsision goes like this: When you are denying citizens from entering into a legal institution like marriage, you have to have a reason. If the reason is that they're gay, (or some other immutable characteristic, i.e. one citizen is black and one white) then your law goes from being examined under the very lenient 'rational basis review' to being subject to the much harsher 'strict scrutiny.' Under strict scrutiny, the government must demonstrate a compelling interest behind it's decision to legally discriminate against an entire group of citizens based on something beyond their control. There is no compelling government interest in not allowing gays to legally marry, since legal marriage is basically tax benefits in exchange for shacking up with someone on a permanent basis. (Sterile heterosexual couples can marry, so arguing that marriage is about procreation is a non-starter)
Without a compelling interest, the law is automatically in violation of the 14th amendment.
>>735645
If that were where all legal marriage were, then you'd be able to have more than two people in it. You say, "But it has to be two people!" Well, it also had to be between one man and one woman. Your definition here is not something that was always the case, it is one you invented, and then said it was always the case.
>>735665
To the government, that is all marriage is currently, maybe it wasn't in the past, but shit changes, and even if marriage was more than that you still have to provide a compelling argument against gay marriage that is with this countries legal framework, and/or with in the nations interest.
>>735722
>shit changes
Yes, and it makes more sense to do it through Amendments rather than through interpretations with zero precedence. Doing it the latter way sets a very, very bad precedent of its own.
>>735738
>Yes, and it makes more sense to do it through Amendments rather than through interpretations with zero precedence.
Marriage isn't in the constitution though so there is no reason to amend the Constitution to include it all of the sudden. Remember that the Constitution does not make rights, it states the Governments restrictions in curtailing them, the right of marriage does not need to be in the Constitution to be granted or limited. The Constitutions main purpose is to set the framework for running the government, hence why the voting amendments were passed as those have to do directly with the running of the government, also note that those amendments only cover the right to vote and not any other laws having to do with equality (which is why Jim Crow got a free pass for so long ). There is no reason to amend the constitution every time we give a group of citizens a right that they previously did not have unless that right actually changes the way in which the government functions.
>>735738
>zero precedence
Oh come on, you can't be serious. Loving v Virginia, Lawrence v. Texas, there's plenty of precedent. Just because you're assmad that a bunch of unconstitutional laws were struck down doesn't magically make the decision any less correct. The court exists to get rid of unconstitutional laws, to check the worst impulses of democracy. Brown v. Board ended school segregation via court decision, and many laws were struck down. People can pass as many unconstitutional laws as they like, public opinion in favor of legislation doesn't insulate it from Judicial Review.
>>735791
>amendments only cover the right to vote and not any other laws having to do with equality
Then it is wrong to say banning gay marriage is unconstitutional?
>>735863
It would have made far more sense to have an Amendment banning segregation.
>>735879
Technically yes, however the Supreme Court may rule on issues having to with Federal Law and may also arbitrate on issues and controversies between states, which the gay marriage issue falls under. The term unconstitutional gets bandied around far too often these day ( in my opinion, because most citizens don't bother to read or understand it outside of their pet amendment ), technically no form of marriage is defined in the articles or amendments, so constitutionality has nothing to do with it, however the Supreme Courts decision can still stand due to the fact that it has to due with Federal Law.
>>734881
My dear, it is OBVIOUS that would be appropriate and consistent change your Constitution by amendment.
It turns out that there is a board of nine citizens not elected by anyone, in your country, which is clearly above those requirements posed to the mere mortals.
Thus, they can change the constitution at their pleasure, by simply a meaningless justification. In this case, was the clause of due process, which basically provides a carte blanche to the Court to trample the constitution.
>people literally actually unironically think that when the 14th amendment was drafted they also were worried about gay marriage which is why for the 150+ years following its ratification it actually wasn't used for gay marriage
wew
>>735883
Why? It wasn't necessary, segregation was already unconstitutional. You're arguing that the tyranny of the majority should reign until enough democratic support can be mustered to change the majority view?
>>734881
why would paul do that
>>736177
If you actually think this, you understand nothing about the Constitution, the Supreme Court, Judicial Review, or the case in question.
>>736203
>segregation was already unconstitutional
If it was always unconstitutional, then I'm guess the people who wrote the Constitution would be firmly against it?
>>734881
That image is retarded and comes to conclusions that aren't even there.
>>736221
Feel free to teach me, oh wise one, on your legal beliefs without no avail or endorsement in the real world.
>I have not yet adequately expressed the more than anxiety that I feel at the ever increasing scope given to the Fourteenth Amendment in cutting down what I believe to be the constitutional rights of the states. As the decisions now stand, I see hardly any limit but the sky to the invalidating of those rights if they happen to strike a majority of this Court as for any reason undesirable.
- Oliver Wendell Holmes, 1930
Learn the legal system of your country, my dear american.
>>736233
Since they were dead when the 14th amendment was passed, I don't see how they would have had the opportunity to have an opinion on the matter. How is it possible for you to be so damn opinionated on a subject you clearly know nothing about?
Gay marriage should be banned,
Legal legislation keeping two humans together who cannot propagate their genes is a stain on the human race, prove me wrong. You can't.
I am not against homo-sex, I am against procedures which prevents the human race from propagating.
>inb4 it's okay because only some people are gay!
That's not how it works.
>>736723
The people who wrote the 14th Amendment were against separate schools for blacks and whites?
>>736668
>implying one quote from a SCOTUS justice proves anything
Not him, but frankly, that's a load of tripe.
>Feel free to teach me, oh wise one, on your legal beliefs without no avail or endorsement in the real world.
Fucking kek, you know nothing about SCOTUS. Judicial Review doesn't change the constitution you fuckwit. Yes, the Justices sometimes have to make a decision in an area where no suit has been brought before, and thus must offer the first interpretation on the matter, but even then the decision is usually steeped in precedents from somewhat related cases. Name me one single fucking instance of Judicial Review actually changing the constitution.
>>736725
So then sterile couples shouldn't be allowed marry either then? And since two parent homes are superior, all the couples that are already procreating have to adopt a bunch of other people's kids? Nice edgy opinion, but your reasoning is fucking retarded.
>>736740
Yes, you fucking moron. Radical reconstruction was aimed at erasing all legal boundaries between the freedmen and the southerners. Read up on people like Thaddeus Stevens and Charles Sumner, and you'll get a picture of the kind of guys behind amendments 13-15
>>736742
>So then sterile couples shouldn't be allowed marry either then?
Being sterile isn't a choice though.
> And since two parent homes are superior, all the couples that are already procreating have to adopt a bunch of other people's kids?
What?
>but your reasoning is fucking retarded.
You made no sense.
>>736748
They wanted to give them legal equality, certainly, but none of them advocated for whites and blacks to have the same military units and things like that.
Because American constitution is their god so there's no way they'll be able to amend it in any way any more. So they'll just have their supreme court create new laws by interpreting existing laws in ways they clearly weren't intended for. And thus the importance of swinging the supreme court in your favour by appointing justices from your faction is paramount.
Remember kids, in USA supreme court makes laws.
>>736725
But that is how it works.
I don't suddenly feel gay because gays can marry.
Do you? Is there something you wish to tell us, anon?
>>736750
being gay isn't a choice either.
>>736750
>Being sterile isn't a choice though
Neither is being gay, according to every reputable medical and psychological association and study. So what you personally choose to incorrectly believe on the subject is besides the point.
Anyways, lets say that we enact legislation to make marriage available only to couples who intend to procreate. Since married couples are strongly preferred by foster systems and adoption agencies, by denying non-procreating couples the right to marry, you've effectively eliminated millions of potential foster and adoptive parents. Those kids will be forced to live in increasingly overcrowded orphanages/foster homes. Congrats, your policy has created a massive drain on government financial resources while helping precisely zero people. Good job.
>>736776
Remember kids, assblasted europoors have zero understanding of how the government works, resulting in hilarious misunderstandings. Like when this poster I'm replying to here thought that Judicial Review of existing laws counted as making new ones.
>>734881
Because the leftists know they can't shove their agenda down the throats of the American people the constitutional way, so they use the judicial branch to bypass the constitution.
That's what happens when you allow political tyrants to appoint their cronies.
>>736779
>>736781
>>736782
Where did I say being gay isn't a choice? You chose to not have kids though, ESPECIALLY in a day and age where medical advances (Viagra) can make up for attraction. It's a choice to let your genes die after millions and millions of years of propagation, it's the ultimate sin to not have kids through choice, and I wish I could belt anyone even thinking about not having kids.
>Anyways, lets say that we enact legislation to make marriage available only to couples who intend to procreate
I haven't even implied this though.
>Since married couples are strongly preferred by foster systems and adoption agencies, by denying non-procreating couples the right to marry, you've effectively eliminated millions of potential foster and adoptive parents.
Adoption is another evil of the first world, educate yourself.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coin-operated-locker_babies
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_hatch
> Congrats, your policy has created a massive drain on government financial resources while helping precisely zero people. Good job.
Congrats, your whole argument is based on literally nothing I have said ;).
>>736798
Overpopulation.
>>736802
Proper allocation of resources.
>>736775
Sure, which is why they forbade segregated accommodations in the Civil Rights Act of 1875
http://legisworks.org/sal/18/stats/STATUTE-18-Pg335a.pdf
>>736809
Finite resources. Exponential population growth.
>>736725
>procedures which prevent the human race from propagating.
Do you realize how many problems overpopulation is causing and will continue to cause? Gay people should be protected as a group of people who most likely won't procreate and further overpopulate the planet.
There will always be an enormous amount of straight people compared to gay people, so any worry about the human race dying off because gay people can marry (like they weren't already fucking before that?) is completely pointless.
>>736798
>Where did I say being gay isn't a choice?
So yeah, this is just blatant trolling.
>>736798
>Adoption is evil
>procreation is what marriage should be based on
It's like you want us all to die of starvation due to overpopulating.
>>736814
>Finite resources
Kek. We live in a near infinite universe ripe with resources and land for the taking, a place which we will reach soon enough.
>being full
>when 1 billion people can fit in a comparatively tiny population.
>>736816
>is completely pointless
It's really not, it's hugely inconsiderate to your ancestors (edgy I know but), imagine how many times your line has been in jeopardy but your ancestors fought tooth and nail to survive, either in battle or fighting for food, hell even fighting a wild animal. It's all for naught, because modern anon thinks Vagina's are icky. Yeah, it has no impact on me at all, doesn't change the facts though.
Listen to this, suicide related but it is entirely applicable to homosexuality (and other aspects of modern life) and refusing to have children.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFLdIGNUKuw
For billions of years since the outset of time
Every single one of your ancestors survived
Every single person on your mum and dad's side
Successfully looked after and passed onto you life
What are the chances of that like?
It comes to me once in a while
And everywhere I tell folk it gets the best smile
All given up because you would rather put dick in bum, or work a career.
>>736836
>tiny population.
Tiny nation*
For billions of years since the outset of time
Every single one of your ancestors survived
Every single person on your mum and dad's side
Successfully looked after and passed onto you life
This can be traced back to the time when we are single cell organism too, by the way. All given up, for attraction.
There some things bigger than sexuality, life is most surely one of them.
>>736798
Because the core Problem we have is not enough humans so we need to force gays to procreate and bring up children in forced loveless marriages with lesbians?
Are you literaly fucking retarded?
>>736847
Sorry, I didn't realize I was talking with a heathen ancestor worshiper.
I hope you find a nice trailer park girl who'll bare you 7 kids.
>>736836
>space travel to other habitable planets
>possible in the near future
>>736847
So you voluntarily choose to have something as important as childbirth decided for you by long dead ancestors.
Ok.
>>736847
Those ancient ancestors anon, they have millions of offspring by now. They don't need jonny cocksucker to be forced by the Government to fuck against his will. Millions of straight people descended from them will do so just fine and provide the children with an actual family in the process.
You are sugesting monstrous tyrany to solve a non issue
