Does The 14th Amendment Provide For And Protect Same Sex Marriage?

Truth7t7 said:

The Christian World Used The Definition "Year Of Our Lord" refering to Jesus Christ, just as John has presented to you several times in your denial of this truth.

Wikipedia: Anno Domini
The terms anno Domini (AD) and before Christ (BC) are used to label or number years in the Julian and Gregorian calendars.
The term anno Domini is Medieval Latin and means "in the year of the Lord", but is often presented using "our Lord" instead of "the Lord", taken from the full original phrase "anno Domini nostri Jesu Christi", which translates to "in the year of our Lord Jesus Christ".

Click to expand...

What "truth" am I denying? That the use of Anno Domini in the date of the Constitution makes this a right-wing Evangelical Protestant nation?

You bet!

John 1720 said:

Obviously redefining marriage between a man and woman to marriage also being defined as same gender unions was never intended to be part of the 14th amendment. The nation that voted it in would have found that interpretation totally out of its scope and never would have been ratified by the represented States if that was the case. So please show me below where the redefinition of marriage is in the 14th Amendment.

Click to expand...

Well, invoking the "where the redefinition of marriage is in the 14th Amendment" is an intriguing exercise. Your statement assumes the 14th Amendment enshrines some definition of marriage. Yet, the 14th Amendment is conspicuously silent as to offering any definition of marriage. Indeed, the 14th Amendment does not have the word "marriage" in it. I am not convinced marriage as between a man and woman was ever "intended to be part of the 14th Amendment," as to preclude redefining marriage. Defining marriage in the 14th Amendment was not, based on the historical evidence, even on the minds of the drafters of the 14th Amendment. A right to marry, a freedom to marry, was likely on their minds when drafting the 14th Amendment, given all the historical evidence of their concern to protect rights and liberties, including unenumerated rights.

Yet, based on your logic, the meaning of marriage when the 14th Amendment was drafted and ratified was not understood to include interracial marriage. A ban on interracial marriage was widely used by the states to define marriage and reflected a societal notion of marriage. Indeed, in Pace v. Alabama, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld state laws prohibiting interracial marriages.

Based on your reasoning, interracial marriage was a redefining of marriage, rendering Loving v Virginia, which recognized a freedom of people of different races to marry, wrongly decided.

But the freedom to marry was very likely protected by either the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment, or the Due Process Clause prohibition of arbitrary laws limiting freedom. See Randy Barnett, No Arbitrary Power: An Originalist Theory of the Due Process of Law, No Arbitrary Power: An Originalist Theory of the Due Process of Law by Randy E. Barnett, Evan D. Bernick :: SSRN

The freedom to marry was considered a natural right, a broad right, and a right extended to all persons under the 14th Amendment.

Truth7t7 said:

The 14th amendment (1868) was drawn to provide physical protections from Death, Imprisonment, and confiscation of property, equal protection and due process was to provided to include newly freed slaves equal protection and due process under the law, at the time the political process didn't recognize freed slaves rights, the 14th amendme t put a rest to the matter.

At no place was original intent to provide provision or protection for same sex marriage, a interpretation that was 100% abuse of power, as dissenting justice Scalia put it, the mystical fortune cookie.

Life=Death Penalty
Liberty=Imprisonment, Detention
Property=Confiscation, Seizure
Equal Protection= All citizens, Including Freed Slaves
Due Process Of Law= All Citizens, Including Newly Freed Slaves

Click to expand...

Do you have any scholarship to back that up, or is that just your own personal belief?

Truth7t7 said:

Your Mr. Barnett, And Bernick don't have a clue, try reading the dissenting opinions on Obergefell v Hodges, the doctrine of "Original Intent" will reverse the current ruling in the soon coming conservative court.

Click to expand...

This elementary logic cannot be persuasive. Mr. Barnett and Bernick are wrong because you say so. The evidence they have is irrelevant because you have declared them to be wrong.

Adopting this same rudimentary logic, the dissenting justices “don’t have a clue,” try reading the article, authored Barnett and Bernick, to which I cited.

NotreDame said:

Yet, despite that historical evidence, the framers most certainly disfavored laws benefitting religion, benefitting specific religions over others, discriminating against religious people/religions, discriminating against non-religious people, etcetera. The framers and drafters also disfavored any rights and liberty interests infringed upon, or limited in applicability, because of, or on the basis of religion.

Click to expand...

Absolutely. Not to mention that the favoritism shown by the British government to the Church of England is why the no religious test clause was included in Article VI. Any federal officeholder only has to affirm allegiance to the Constitution. His/her religious belief--or non-belief--makes no difference. And as you know, the courts have held that the same applies to state officeholders.

Article VI, §3:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

NotreDame said:

Those claims would properly find refuge under the 1st Amendment.

Furthermore, the 14th Amendment prohibits arbitrary infringement upon liberty. Public accommodation laws are not arbitrary infringements upon liberty.

Click to expand...

Well, with the exception being the liberty to associate as you choose.

KarateCowboy said:

Well, with the exception being the liberty to associate as you choose.

Click to expand...

It's not rational to equate sale of a product, good, or service, constitutes as “associating” or “to associate” with the customer. (Not in the legal sense of the right to associate or colloquial meaning).

NotreDame said:

It's not rational to equate sale of a product, good, or service, constitutes as “associating” or “to associate” with the customer. (Not in the legal sense of the right to associate or colloquial meaning).

Click to expand...

It's an association. You're associating with them for the purpose of selling your stuff to them. So it's a business association. Maybe you think it's not rational to call a business association an association. I think it is, because a business association is a type of association. I mean, the logical end of what you're saying is that if I own and run a store, then other people have a right to my service, time, and attention. Personally, I believe the right to decide with whom I do business belongs to me, not you. You know, when you are made to do some sort of service involuntarily that is called "involuntary servitude".

KarateCowboy said:

It's an association. You're associating with them for the purpose of selling your stuff to them. So it's a business association. Maybe you think it's not rational to call a business association an association. I think it is, because a business association is a type of association. I mean, the logical end of what you're saying is that if I own and run a store, then other people have a right to my service, time, and attention. Personally, I believe the right to decide with whom I do business belongs to me, not you. You know, when you are made to do some sort of service involuntarily that is called "involuntary servitude".

Click to expand...

That depends on federal, state and local accommodation laws. Your right to deny service is not absolute.

Speedwell said:

That depends on federal, state and local accommodation laws. Your right to deny service is not absolute.

Click to expand...

I'd be curious as to from where this alleged right to other people's time, labor, and association comes. The God-given right to have others serve -- sounds a lot like Divine Right to Rule.

KarateCowboy said:

It's an association. You're associating with them for the purpose of selling your stuff to them. So it's a business association. Maybe you think it's not rational to call a business association an association. I think it is, because a business association is a type of association. I mean, the logical end of what you're saying is that if I own and run a store, then other people have a right to my service, time, and attention. Personally, I believe the right to decide with whom I do business belongs to me, not you. You know, when you are made to do some sort of service involuntarily that is called "involuntary servitude".

Click to expand...

Not really. An association is some relationship with a closer bond, a closer, more personal interaction and involvement, with more consistent contact, and is not established with some random, transient stranger who walks into a store to buy a carton of smokes.

Indeed, person x, a permanent resident of Indiana, driving down I-65 to Florida for vacation, and stops at a gas station, never enters the store, never speaks to anyone inside the store, pays for gas outside with a credit card, and received the gas from the store, but is never to return to this store for gas, is now “associated with” or “to associate with” based on your logic.

But it is irrational to think person x in my example is “associated” with the store, or in an “association” with the store. Yet, your logic leads to that irrational outcome.

“Associate” is defined in the basis of a closer in nature, some level of consistent interactive, relationship. ”to join as a partner, friend, or companion...
: to join or connect together : combine

• 
  
  
  • particles of gold associated with heavy minerals

A customer merely buying a good, service, or product from a business does not create an association or to be associated with the business or the business the business to be associated with or in associarion with the customer.

Rather, the specific facts and nature of the transaction must be scrutinized to ascertain whether those facts give rise to an association between cusomter and business or to be associated with each other.

Truth7t7 said:

The Christian World Used The Definition "Year Of Our Lord" refering to Jesus Christ, just as John has presented to you several times in your denial of this truth.

Wikipedia: Anno Domini
The terms anno Domini (AD) and before Christ (BC) are used to label or number years in the Julian and Gregorian calendars.
The term anno Domini is Medieval Latin and means "in the year of the Lord", but is often presented using "our Lord" instead of "the Lord", taken from the full original phrase "anno Domini nostri Jesu Christi", which translates to "in the year of our Lord Jesus Christ".

Click to expand...

Like I said, an expression marking the passage of time. Like a.m. or p.m. or Daylight Saving Time.

NotreDame said:

Not really. An association is some relationship with a closer bond, a closer, more personal interaction and involvement, with more consistent contact, and is not established with some random, transient stranger who walks into a store to buy a carton of smokes.

Indeed, person x, a permanent resident of Indiana, driving down I-65 to Florida for vacation, and stops at a gas station, never enters the store, never speaks to anyone inside the store, pays for gas outside with a credit card, and received the gas from the store, but is never to return to this store for gas, is now “associated with” or “to associate with” based on your logic.

But it is irrational to think person x in my example is “associated” with the store, or in an “association” with the store. Yet, your logic leads to that irrational outcome.

“Associate” is defined in the basis of a closer in nature, some level of consistent interactive, relationship. ”to join as a partner, friend, or companion...
: to join or connect together : combine

• 
  
  
  • particles of gold associated with heavy minerals

A customer merely buying a good, service, or product from a business does not create an association or to be associated with the business or the business the business to be associated with or in associarion with the customer.

Rather, the specific facts and nature of the transaction must be scrutinized to ascertain whether those facts give rise to an association between cusomter and business or to be associated with each other.

Click to expand...

This is a lot like how people come up with this stupidity like "Well, blacks may be human, but they're not people", so therefore we can deny them their rights!

To "associate" as a verb is defined as "to connect or bring into relation". A business transaction, no matter how brief, brings to parties into relation for a business exchange. How meaningful is that? How long term is that? Well, it's not for you to decide. That's the point of freedom of association: you don't get to use arbitrary definitions of 'deepness' to tell people who they may or may not, or must or must not, enter into associations with.

Truth7t7 said:

If the gas station is waving the rainbow flag banner on the gas pumps and store front, I don't stop and keep driving, I won't use my monies to support promoters of homosexuality

Click to expand...

Yup.

Refusing service and boycotting/refusing patronage are inseparable twins. Saying Peter has to sell gas to Paul is no more just than saying Paul must buy it from Peter.

Truth7t7 said:

The 14th amendment was not written in original intent in (1868) to provide for "Same Sex Marriage" as the US Supreme Court has ruled it does (2015) Obergefell v. Hodges.

Click to expand...

The very moment the US Supreme Court makes a ruling that answers your question. Until changed, all the reasoning in the world is moot.

NotreDame said:

Not really. An association is some relationship with a closer bond, a closer, more personal interaction and involvement, with more consistent contact, and is not established with some random, transient stranger who walks into a store to buy a carton of smokes.

Indeed, person x, a permanent resident of Indiana, driving down I-65 to Florida for vacation, and stops at a gas station, never enters the store, never speaks to anyone inside the store, pays for gas outside with a credit card, and received the gas from the store, but is never to return to this store for gas, is now “associated with” or “to associate with” based on your logic.

But it is irrational to think person x in my example is “associated” with the store, or in an “association” with the store. Yet, your logic leads to that irrational outcome.

“Associate” is defined in the basis of a closer in nature, some level of consistent interactive, relationship. ”to join as a partner, friend, or companion...
: to join or connect together : combine

• 
  
  
  • particles of gold associated with heavy minerals

A customer merely buying a good, service, or product from a business does not create an association or to be associated with the business or the business the business to be associated with or in associarion with the customer.

Rather, the specific facts and nature of the transaction must be scrutinized to ascertain whether those facts give rise to an association between cusomter and business or to be associated with each other.

Click to expand...

I have a question of SCOTUS history. Stare decisis notwithstanding, I know there have been cases where a law, or legal doctrine, that was once found constitutional, was ruled unconstitutional in a later decision. Like Plessy v. Ferguson was overturned in Brown v. Board. And Bowers v. Hardwick was overruled in Lawrence v. Texas. But has the opposite ever occurred? Has the SC, specifically in equal protection jurisprudence, ever held that a law once found unconstitutional, was in fact, constitutionally permitted?

KarateCowboy said:

This is a lot like how people come up with this stupidity like "Well, blacks may be human, but they're not people", so therefore we can deny them their rights!

To "associate" as a verb is defined as "to connect or bring into relation". A business transaction, no matter how brief, brings to parties into relation for a business exchange. How meaningful is that? How long term is that? Well, it's not for you to decide. That's the point of freedom of association: you don't get to use arbitrary definitions of 'deepness' to tell people who they may or may not, or must or must not, enter into associations with.

Click to expand...

This is a lot like how people come up with this stupidity like "Well, blacks may be human, but they're not people", so therefore we can deny them their rights!

Click to expand...

My reasoning is not remotely parallel to the above and if you persist to make nonparallel, inflammatory comparisons, I will report it.

To "associate" as a verb is defined as "to connect or bring into relation". A business transaction, no matter how brief, brings to parties into relation for a business exchange. How meaningful is that? How long term is that? Well, it's not for you to decide. That's the point of freedom of association: you don't get to use arbitrary definitions of 'deepness' to tell people who they may or may not, or must or must not, enter into associations with

Click to expand...

First of all, “freedom of association, is a legal term of art, having a precise meaning in the law, specifically in the 1st Amendment. The legal meaning does not remotely come close to those business transactions in my examples. Seems to me you want to impose “arbitrary” terms upon the legal meaning to fit your ideology. The legal phrase “freedom of association” doesn’t comport with your meaning. The legal phrase “freedom of association” doesn’t include those business transactions in my examples.

Perhaps you didn’t really mean to use the legal terminology “freedom of association” but instead was invoking the layperson meaning of association. Well, even the meaning of “association” doesn’t include my examples.

Association:

1.
a : the act of associating
b : the state of being associated : combination, relationship

• had a long association with the firm

2: an organization of persons having a common interest : society

• an alumni association

Well, number two is inapplicable to my hypos.

1b is inapplicable. We can know this by the example: “had a long association with the firm.” This is supported by the meaning of combination. “
a : a result or product of combining

• Water is a combination of hydrogen and oxygen.

; especially : an alliance of individuals, corporations, or states united to achieve a social, political, or economic end
b : two or more persons working as a team

• Together they are a winning combination.

Yeah, my examples do not meet that definition of combination.

Neither does the meaning of “relationship” fit my examples. “
1.
: the state of being related or interrelated

• studied the relationship between the variables

2: the relation connecting or binding participants in a relationship: such as
a : kinship
b : a specific instance or type of kinship
3a : a state of affairs existing between those having relations or dealings

• had a good relationship with his family

b : a romantic or passionate attachment

Meaning two and 3 are not applicable to my hypos. My hypos are nothing like a “kinship.”

Number is inapplicable as well to my hypos. The meaning of “related,” in number one refers back to “relation” which is “two or more things or parts as being or belonging or working together or as being of the same kind

The business transaction in my hypos do not constitute as the customer “being or belonging together” with the store or as “working together” with the store.

So, no, the word “association” is not as broad as you desire to include some random, tansient person buying a pack of smokes from a store, or a vacationer stopping for gas at a store in another state on their way to their destination. Those interactions do not form an “association” between customer and the store.