Originally posted by Mysti-ken:
Originally posted by DrGonzo:
Not neccesary.

Please see Ad. 14...

1. 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.

It's called the "equal protection clause."

I mean no offense by this, but I imagine that you Canadians don't spend much time in school studying the US Constitution. Hell, we don't here.




No offense taken - although we do in fact study the American system of government, it is not so detailed as to delve into the intricacies of the constitution. (and more to the point, it was 42 years ago for me)

Now, having said that, and looking at the statement above which appears to be section one of the 14th amemdment, why were the 15th and 19th amendments deemed necessary, and why wouldn't the same need also apply to sexual orientation?




13th, 14th, and 15th are a sort of package from the Reconstruction period after the Civil War, that's the best way to explain the 15th. There were attempts to deny former slaves the right to vote so it's spelled out.

The 19th? Because we don't really do what we say. At the time, society norms simply implied women did not vote. Actually, women were not given the right to vote by the 14th. Ad.14, section 2 actually prescibes the right to vote to MEN. It states that the right to vote cannot be denied to"...any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime..." The fact is, the constitution and its interpretation evolves with the times, and that was a needed explanation as we evolved as a society to allow women the vote.

The 14th has evolved as well, through the "seperate but equal" times (Plessey v. Ferguson) to today's interpertation. I don't see a logical arguement to not apply the 14th (and 1st)to gay rights, esp. considering the recent sodomy case (Lawerence V. Texas). Now, oddly, there were specific arguements made in this case that marriage is an institution made by the state for the purposes of the state and that behavior and marriage are different. However, in dissent Justice Scalia predicts the affect of the case on marriage laws, i.e. bigamy and gay marriage.

Interestingly, there is a now case currently before the Supreme Court this term on Polygamy, brought about becasue of Lawernce v. Texas, that may have a lot to do with decideding the gay marriage issue. I really don't like CBS, but here is a good article from them on the case. click .

If this topic is important to you, keep a close eye on this case.

former owner, 95 SE MTX 02 Ford Explorer