• abraxas@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    This is why you’re getting downvoted. People traditionally owned other people, too. “Traditional” is not necessarily “equal”.

    Can a man marry me? Can a woman marry me? If the answer to both questions isn’t exactly the same, that is an explicit failure of the 14th Amendment Equal Protections clause. Just like “Can I own a white person? Can I own a black person?” Asymmetric rights are the purest example of unequal treatment. It’s no different than when a Republican president told the world that Freedom of Religion is Freedom of Christian Religions and that Pagan Religions deserve no rights. (I wonder if you know which president did that)

    Be honest if you oppose equal protections, but don’t bend yourself into a pretzel to pretend persecuting homosexuals is something other than it is.

    • Neuromancer@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m not a child, so I don’t care about downvotes. It just shows my viewpoint is accurate.

      I get you may live for an upvote but I live in the real world where success isn’t measured by a click by others.

      I do not know which president said that and that is wrong as the 1st amendment guarantees religious rights. I’m not religious but I’m not anti-theist.

      I don’t oppose equal protections. You’re bending yourself into a pretzel trying to make it fit the scenario. It’s why the 14th amendment is poorly written. It’s the escape clause for when someone can’t figure something out.

      • abraxas@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m not a child, so I don’t care about downvotes. It just shows my viewpoint is accurate.

        You say you’re not a child, but then made clear that you enjoy getting downvotes because you think downvotes mean you’re right. Which are you?

        I do not know which president said that and that is wrong as the 1st amendment guarantees religious rights. I’m not religious but I’m not anti-theist.

        For the record, it was George W Bush. He was pushing, and making noise, that Wiccans should not be allowed access to a Wiccan Minister, and those who died should not be allowed Wiccan symbolism on their graves or Wiccan burial traditions because he felt “Wicca isn’t a real religion”. Same shit as “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”. Same shit as not allowing gay marriage in the first place.

        “Traditionally” in the US, Religious Rights were NOT symmetrically guaranteed. You most certainly could be alienated for holding a fringe religion. Just look at the history of Mormonism if you must.

        Quite literally, things like gay marriage is the heart and soul of why the Equal Protection Clause was added after the Civil War. That Americans were too regressive to stop gay marriage immediately (or sexism wrt voting, but that’s in the Amendment as the one equal protection not being granted) is a statement against the People, not the Clause.

        I don’t oppose equal protections

        But you don’t see how gay marriage isn’t about Equal Protection. And you ignored the part of my point where it is categorically similar to women’s suffrage and slavery.

        You’re bending yourself into a pretzel trying to make it fit the scenario

        You really “no U” doesn’t work here, or anywhere. I’m not bending anything into pretzels. You don’t even have a counter except to reject my points and openly attack the 14th Amendment.

        It’s why the 14th amendment is poorly written

        This is a hot take, and one you had better substantiate. The text of the 14th Amendment is absolutely clear, and was written by people who made the intentions of the 14th Amendment just as clear. **Any ** failure to understand the 14th Amendment in text or intent by lawmakers or Justices is done in bad faith. Or as an aforementioned famous Republican said of the Constitution “It’s just a piece of paper”.

        • Neuromancer@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          This is a circular argument.

          You’re making the erroneous claim that marriage is defined in the constitution. It isn’t. That means it falls to the states.

          The courts allowing gay marriage is a misstep by the courts which hopefully the current court will correct as they did with roe.

          This is an issue for the states and congress to work out.

          Have a good day.

          • abraxas@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            This is a circular argument.

            Non Sequitur. Nothing you say after this claim attempts to impeach me of circular reasoning. Do you know what a circular argument is?

            You’re making the erroneous claim that marriage is defined in the constitution

            So you agree that the Constitution has nothing in it that says Marriage is between a man and a woman? Because then there is nothing in it to temper Equal Protections from applying to gay marriage. Or do you believe state and federal law should supersede the rights enshrined in the Constitution?

            That means it falls to the states.

            The Constitution also doesn’t define “Speech” or “Crime” or hell, “State”.

            The courts allowing gay marriage is a misstep by the courts which hopefully the current court will correct as they did with roe.

            Annnnnd the truth comes out. Welcome to my block list.

            • Neuromancer@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Ah so you think the courts should create law. Good to know.

              Maybe you should learn how our government functions. Congress creates law. The courts interpret the laws.

              I see why you’re so befuddled now. You don’t get how the system works. You think the courts should just create laws and ignore congress.

              Congress needs to get off their ass. It’s that simple.