"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 the due process of the law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law."
So you genuinely believe that the right of same sex marriage has ALWAYS been there in those words. I guess no one realized it until Friday? You believe that's what the authors' of those words intended? You believe that what happened Friday, did not change the constitution, but actually interpreted what was always there? You believe that those words truly mean that a person has a right to marry, even though no right to marry have ever been recognized before ever? You believe those words not only mean there is a right to marry based on sexual preference for a partner of the same sex, but do not mean there is a right to marry based on sexual preference for multiple partners or any other sexual preference?
Explain to me how the 14th amendment ALWAYS gave a right to gay marriage (or any right of marriage for that matter), but did not give a right to women the right to vote?
Otherwise, accept the law of the land and move on. And if the attorney general of Texas, or Mississippi, or Louisiana, or any other state wishes to refuse to abide by our federal law and the Constitution they have sworn to uphold, let them be removed from office for such illegal practices. And trying to manipulate their refusal to follow the United States Constitution on religious grounds will hold no water for employees who work for the city, county, or state governments. Legal precedent precludes such arguments.
Thomas Jefferson and James Madison did not accept the law of the land and move on when the supreme court got it wrong at the alien and sedition trials (the supreme court actually said that the people did not have a first amendment right to criticize the president). Abraham Lincoln did not accept the law of the land and move on when the supreme court got it wrong in Dred Scott. I give you his words "
At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government upon vital questions, affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made, in ordinary litigation between parties, in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal." The NAACP did not accept the the Supreme Court's decision in
Giles v. Harris (1903) when the black men of Alabama were disenfranchised (and no that did not involve the poll tax. Actually, the original point of the poll tax was for political bosses to find out who was voting. It later became more about keeping people from voting, yes. It was cured by a amendment, NOT THE COURT, as you pointed out).
The supreme court said there was a right to freedom of contract in Lochner (1905), then decided in 1934 that there was no right to freedom of contract. None of the founding fathers believed if the supreme court says so, it's the law and we must all just move on. Why? Because the Supreme Court is not infallible. The Supreme Court can get it wrong. Here they did not just get it wrong, that's not my complaint. My complaint is they did not do their job of interpreting the law, and the brazenly did not interpret the law.
Justice Roberts puts it more eloquently than I do:
"Petitioners make strong arguments rooted in social policy and considerations of fairness. They contend that same-sex couples should be allowed to affirm their love and commitment through marriage, just like opposite-sex couples. That position has undeniable appeal; over the past six years, voters and legislators in eleven States and the District of Columbia have revised their laws to allow marriage between two people of the same sex.
But this Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be. The people who ratified the Constitution authorized courts to exercise “neither force nor will but merely judgment."......
Today, however, the Court takes the extraordinary step of ordering every State to license and recognize same-sex marriage. Many people will rejoice at this decision, and I begrudge none their celebration. But for those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority’s ap- proach is deeply disheartening. Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens—through the democratic process—to adopt their view. That ends today. Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept.
The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judg- ment. The right it announces has no basis in the Consti- tution or this Court’s precedent. The majority expressly disclaims judicial “caution” and omits even a pretense of humility, openly relying on its desire to remake society according to its own “new insight” into the “nature of injustice.” Ante, at 11, 23. As a result, the Court invali- dates the marriage laws of more than half the States and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthagin- ians and the Aztecs. Just who do we think we are?
It can be tempting for judges to confuse our own prefer- ences with the requirements of the law. But as this Court has been reminded throughout our history, the Constitu- tion “is made for people of fundamentally differing views.” Lochner v. New York, 198 U. S. 45, 76 (1905) (Holmes, J., dissenting). Accordingly, “courts are not concerned with the wisdom or policy of legislation.” Id., at 69 (Harlan, J., dissenting). The majority today neglects that restrained conception of the judicial role. It seizes for itself a ques- tion the Constitution leaves to the people, at a time when the people are engaged in a vibrant debate on that ques- tion. And it answers that question based not on neutral principles of constitutional law, but on its own “under- standing of what freedom is and must become.” Ante, at 19. I have no choice but to dissent.
Understand well what this dissent is about: It is not about whether, in my judgment, the institution of mar- riage should be changed to include same-sex couples. It is instead about whether, in our democratic republic, that decision should rest with the people acting through their elected representatives, or with five lawyers who happen to hold commissions authorizing them to resolve legal disputes according to law. The Constitution leaves no doubt about the answer.....
Racial restrictions on marriage,
which “arose as an incident to slavery” (this is banned by the 13th amendment) to promote “White Supremacy,” were repealed by many States and ultimately struck down by this Court....
Shortly after this Court struck down racial restrictions on marriage in Loving, a gay couple in Minnesota sought a marriage license. They argued that the Constitution required States to allow marriage between people of the same sex for the same reasons that it requires States to allow marriage between people of different races. The Minnesota Supreme Court rejected their analogy to Lov- ing, and this Court summarily dismissed an appeal. Baker v. Nelson, 409 U. S. 810 (1972)...."
^ Hey look, the Supreme Court in 1972 said the constitution did not include a right to gay marriage. This is strange since according to you, gay marriage is in the constitution. The 14th amendment existed in 1972. Why did not everyone accept that and move on in 1972?
"The majority’s approach has no basis in principle or tradition, except for the unprincipled tradition of judicial policymaking that char- acterized discredited decisions such as Lochner v. New York, 198 U. S. 45. Stripped of its shiny rhetorical gloss, the majority’s argument is that the Due Process Clause gives same-sex couples a fundamental right to marry because it will be good for them and for society. If I were a legislator, I would certainly consider that view as a matter of social policy. But as a judge, I find the majority’s position indefensible as a matter of constitutional law. "
Please take the time to tread the above and actually read the opinion (both the majority and the dissent). Your whole argument is "it's there because the supreme court says so." Okay what if the supreme court says "We do not see a right to free speech." I guess its not there because they say it is not there?
And trying to manipulate their refusal to follow the United States Constitution on religious grounds
Who said anything about this? Your supreme court just manipulated the constitution based on their own opinion of what they thought good public policy should be and added something that was not and has never been there.
Most legal scholars seem very comfortable with the decision on same-sex marriage as it pertains to the 14th Amendment of our Constitution. (the early statistics are about 85% of legal scholars agree with the ruling)
Unfortunately, most legal scholars think they know better than the people and that judges should decide everything.
