100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
| Topic: 14th AMENDMENT,,continued from dating | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Sat 11/21/09 12:42 PM
|
|
my fellow mingler wrote:
I recognize this as a form of empowerment, but there is no inherent creditability on the matter of perception, especially when you offer other people's perceptions and experiences. Also, who are you comparing yourself to when you say you 'understand a little more', in respect to the fourteenth amendment? My answer: I apologize for not being more specific. I was stating that I am more knowledgable about the fourteenth amendment than I am about the ENTIRE constitution. I was comparing my own knowledge in one area compared to what I have learned about another. I learned alot about discrimination, affirmative action and the fourteenth amendment not merely because of others experiences, but because my mother was an activist and an EEO officer who made a point of TEACHING me. Her social activity alone wasnt the basis of my own knowledge, it was her TEACHING me which enabled me to gain knowledge. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First, I need to point out that I made some corrections to my last post.
sexual orientation has already be included the decisive factor in a supreme court ruling, in regards to the Equal Protection Clause. So the interpretation is lawful, and not open to public opinion. "In Lawrence v. Texas (2003), the Court struck down a Texas statute prohibiting homosexual sodomy on substantive due process grounds. In Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's opinion concurring in the judgment, however, she argued that by prohibiting only homosexual sodomy, and not heterosexual sodomy as well, Texas's statute did not meet rational-basis review under the Equal Protection Clause; her opinion prominently cited City of Cleburne" excuse me, that's not entirely true, sexual orientation is not judicially extended to the Equal Protection Clause. The due process grounds in the Equal Protection Clause was the decisive factor. Sexual Orientation was the issue that needed to be factored by the grounds of due process. Which is the prevailing argument against the constitutionality of the Defense Of Marriage Act, so this was the prelude to what the supreme court decision would be on hearing the Defense Of Marriage Act, if they ever hear the case. Look, the only reason all of this was mentioned, is because someone challenged my point of social injustice against homosexuality through discriminatory legislation. The constitutionality of the Defense Of Marriage Act was just an example. At that point, everyone, heterosexual or not, would be subject to state's laws on the matter... which is still in violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause.. However, it wouldn't be discriminatory legislation. I'm incorrect here, it wouldn't be in violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause, because without the discriminatory portion in the legislation, it wouldn't warrant due process. In fact, it would just be reiterating the existing state rights over authorities of civil marriage. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First, I need to point out that I made some corrections to my last post. sexual orientation has already be included the decisive factor in a supreme court ruling, in regards to the Equal Protection Clause. So the interpretation is lawful, and not open to public opinion. "In Lawrence v. Texas (2003), the Court struck down a Texas statute prohibiting homosexual sodomy on substantive due process grounds. In Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's opinion concurring in the judgment, however, she argued that by prohibiting only homosexual sodomy, and not heterosexual sodomy as well, Texas's statute did not meet rational-basis review under the Equal Protection Clause; her opinion prominently cited City of Cleburne" excuse me, that's not entirely true, sexual orientation is not judicially extended to the Equal Protection Clause. The due process grounds in the Equal Protection Clause was the decisive factor. Sexual Orientation was the issue that needed to be factored by the grounds of due process. Which is the prevailing argument against the constitutionality of the Defense Of Marriage Act, so this was the prelude to what the supreme court decision would be on hearing the Defense Of Marriage Act, if they ever hear the case. Look, the only reason all of this was mentioned, is because someone challenged my point of social injustice against homosexuality through discriminatory legislation. The constitutionality of the Defense Of Marriage Act was just an example. At that point, everyone, heterosexual or not, would be subject to state's laws on the matter... which is still in violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause.. However, it wouldn't be discriminatory legislation. I'm incorrect here, it wouldn't be in violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause, because without the discriminatory portion in the legislation, it wouldn't warrant due process. In fact, it would just be reiterating the existing state rights over authorities of civil marriage. so we are concluding this debate both admitting errors,,,how wonderfully rare....lol |
|
|
|
|
