Gay Marriage and the 14th Amendment


14amA Constitution Thursday look at the 14th Amendments protections of “privileges and immunities” and how that enters into the arguments for and against bans on gay marriage.

Congressman John Bingham speech, “One Country, One Constitution and One People” in favor of the 14th Amendment

download_icon

20140917_AvailableoniTunes

Advertisements

Posted on April 30, 2015, in News & Notes and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 1 Comment.

  1. Don Jackson

    Your views on the issues, the likely result from the Supreme Court cases, and — well, you didn’t say much about what happens to civil society… I think I’ve understood most of what you said; and I can’t argue against it.
    But there are some things about the “full incorporation” arguments that give one pause: Particularly, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments).
    Was it merely a nullity, to the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment…that these two had nothing to do with the states’ application of law? Had they discussed it? If not, the plea that full incorporation was intended lacks some needed support. (That is: If cases where it was neither possible nor sensible weren’t cited [distinguished…], then the general proposition wasn’t pressed.
    [The practice of law is not something new and wonderful!]
    Relying upon a lack-luster and disingenuous defense is not well regarded as a vigorous pleading…
    Better counsel should be sought.

    I know this is a technical argument. (I apologize for it… But I’d lost a longer more cogent post earlier to either my browser, my computer, my ISP, or my fumbling fingers!)

    [Did the FCC or its minions “eat it” as an offering? My theological perspicuity is deficient… 🙂 )

    In short: (Before I read a goodly portion of the original debate upon the 14th Amendment -again- I’ll ponder recent arguments as well —

    Including mine: That no blanket incorporation was proposed, argued for, nor sought. If only on logical grounds, this is understandable; but then the few “unincorporable” Amendments should have been noted and separated from the others — if what you claim is supportable.

    As I say, I’ve not read the record recently. Why -I ask, as a simple man- did they not simply enumerate (or disparage the others…) the Amendments to which they wanted to apply to the states?

    Cheers!

    Don

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: