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

[Truth7t7]

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.

This amendment was provided for newly freed slaves of the (1865) 13th amendment to ensure citizenship and, Life, Liberty, Property, Equal Protection And Due Process.

(1865) 13th amendment, freedom from slavery
(1868) 14th amendment, to protect freed slaves, as US citizens.

Life=Death Penalty
Liberty=Imprisonment,Detained
Property=Confiscation/Seizure
Equal Protection=Public Lawyer, Due Process

The only way true provision and protection will be seen regarding "Same Sex Marriage" is through a constitutional amendment.

Wikipedia: United States Constitution

The Thirteenth Amendment (1865) abolished slavery and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime, and authorized Congress to enforce abolition. Though millions of slaves had been declared free by the 1863 Emancipation Proclamation, their post Civil War status was unclear, as was the status of other millions.[82] Congress intended the Thirteenth Amendment to be a proclamation of freedom for all slaves throughout the nation and to take the question of emancipation away from politics. This amendment rendered inoperative or moot several of the original parts of the constitution.[83]

The Fourteenth Amendment (1868) granted United States citizenship to former slaves and to all persons "subject to U.S. jurisdiction". It also contained three new limits on state power: a state shall not violate a citizen's privileges or immunities; shall not deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; and must guarantee all persons equal protection of the laws.

 

[NotreDame]

It’s more complicated.

First, the plain text is controlling. The 14th Amendment says “person.” As a result, it’s protections wasn’t for blacks or slaves but essentially any human being within the jurisdiction of a State.

Second, according to the lawyer and scholar referenced in the link below, the 14th Amendment Due Process Claise protects “liberty” of the people from “arbitrary” infringement by State government. This would include freedom to marry someone of the same sex.

No Arbitrary Power: An Originalist Theory of the Due Process of Law

According to this lawyer and scholar at the link below, the original meaning of the 14th Amendment does protest same sex marriage.

Originalism and Same Sex Marriage by Steven G. Calabresi, Hannah Begley :: SSRN

 

[BNR32FAN]

It’s more complicated.

First, the plain text is controlling. The 14th Amendment says “person.” As a result, it’s protections wasn’t for blacks or slaves but essentially any human being within the jurisdiction of a State.

Second, according to the lawyer and scholar referenced in the link below, the 14th Amendment Due Process Claise protects “liberty” of the people from “arbitrary” infringement by State government. This would include freedom to marry someone of the same sex.

No Arbitrary Power: An Originalist Theory of the Due Process of Law

According to this lawyer and scholar at the link below, the original meaning of the 14th Amendment does protest same sex marriage.

Originalism and Same Sex Marriage by Steven G. Calabresi, Hannah Begley :: SSRN

If that is the case then this same amendment would also protect people from being forced by law to provide services to people who’s beliefs and practices infringe on their religious beliefs.

 

[NotreDame]

If that is the case then this same amendment would also protect people from being forced by law to provide services to people who’s beliefs and practices infringe on their religious beliefs.

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.

 

[TLK Valentine]

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.

This amendment was provided for newly freed slaves of the (1865) 13th amendment to ensure citizenship and, Life, Liberty, Property, Equal Protection And Due Process.

(1865) 13th amendment, freedom from slavery
(1868) 14th amendment, to protect freed slaves, as US citizens.

Life=Death Penalty
Liberty=Imprisonment,Detained
Property=Confiscation/Seizure
Equal Protection=Public Lawyer, Due Process

The only way true provision and protection will be seen regarding "Same Sex Marriage" is through a constitutional amendment.

Wikipedia: United States Constitution

The Thirteenth Amendment (1865) abolished slavery and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime, and authorized Congress to enforce abolition. Though millions of slaves had been declared free by the 1863 Emancipation Proclamation, their post Civil War status was unclear, as was the status of other millions.[82] Congress intended the Thirteenth Amendment to be a proclamation of freedom for all slaves throughout the nation and to take the question of emancipation away from politics. This amendment rendered inoperative or moot several of the original parts of the constitution.[83]

The Fourteenth Amendment (1868) granted United States citizenship to former slaves and to all persons "subject to U.S. jurisdiction". It also contained three new limits on state power: a state shall not violate a citizen's privileges or immunities; shall not deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; and must guarantee all persons equal protection of the laws.

The Supreme Court already decided that it does -- put the whip away; the horse is dead.

 

[USincognito]

Look out guys! We've got a non-lawyer, with an agenda, citing Wikipedia!

 

[BNR32FAN]

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.

If I’m not mistaken according to homosexuals it is arbitrary.

 

[Rubiks]

The Supreme Court already decided that it does -- put the whip away; the horse is dead.

You don't have to respond to this thread, you know

 

[Rubiks]

Look out guys! We've got a non-lawyer, with an agenda, citing Wikipedia!

Wikipedia is actually fairly accurate, although I wouldn't use it as an academic source.

 

[Allandavid]

You don't have to respond to this thread, you know

But he has...and he makes a sound observation...

 

[TLK Valentine]

You don't have to respond to this thread, you know

This thread didn't have to be started in the first place. Isn't choice a wonderful thing?

 

[Truth7t7]

It’s more complicated.

First, the plain text is controlling. The 14th Amendment says “person.” As a result, it’s protections wasn’t for blacks or slaves but essentially any human being within the jurisdiction of a State.

Second, according to the lawyer and scholar referenced in the link below, the 14th Amendment Due Process Claise protects “liberty” of the people from “arbitrary” infringement by State government. This would include freedom to marry someone of the same sex.

No Arbitrary Power: An Originalist Theory of the Due Process of Law

According to this lawyer and scholar at the link below, the original meaning of the 14th Amendment does protest same sex marriage.

Originalism and Same Sex Marriage by Steven G. Calabresi, Hannah Begley :: SSRN

Sorry but the original intent was not to provide "Same Sex Marriage" 5 Liberal Justices in their person bias and abuse of power have provided this, and forced it upon America.

The lawyers below disagree with your lawyer

Wikipedia: Obergefell V Hodges

Dissenting opinions

Chief Justice Roberts
In his dissent, Chief JusticeJohn Roberts argued same-sex marriage bans did not violate the Constitution.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justices Scalia and Thomas. Roberts accepted substantive due process, by which fundamental rights are protected through the Due Process Clause, but warned it has been misused over time to expand perceived fundamental rights, particularly in Dred Scott v. Sandford and Lochner v. New York.[130] Roberts stated that no prior decision had changed the core component of marriage, that it be between one man and one woman; consequently, same-sex marriage bans did not violate the Due Process Clause.[131] Roberts also rejected the notion that same-sex marriage bans violated a right to privacy, because they involved no government intrusion or subsequent punishment.[132] Addressing the Equal Protection Clause, Roberts stated that same-sex marriage bans did not violate the clause because they were rationally related to a governmental interest: preserving the traditional definition of marriage.[133]

More generally, Roberts stated that marriage, which he proposed had always had a "universal definition" as "the union of a man and a woman", arose to ensure successful childrearing.[134] Roberts criticized the majority opinion for relying on moral convictions rather than a constitutional basis, and for expanding fundamental rights without caution or regard for history.[135] He also suggested the majority opinion could be used to expand marriage to include legalized polygamy.[136] Roberts chided the majority for overriding the democratic process and for using the judiciary in a way that was not originally intended.[137] According to Roberts, supporters of same-sex marriage cannot win "true acceptance" for their side because the debate has now been closed.[138] Roberts also suggested the majority's opinion will ultimately lead to consequences for religious liberty, and he found the Court's language unfairly attacks opponents of same-sex marriage.[139]

Justice Scalia
Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justice Thomas. Scalia stated that the Court's decision effectively robs the people of "the freedom to govern themselves", noting that a rigorous debate on same-sex marriage had been taking place and that, by deciding the issue nationwide, the democratic process had been unduly halted.[140] Addressing the claimed Fourteenth Amendment violation, Scalia asserted that, because a same-sex marriage ban would not have been considered unconstitutional at the time of the Fourteenth Amendment's adoption, such bans are not unconstitutional today.[141] He claimed there was "no basis" for the Court's decision striking down legislation that the Fourteenth Amendment does not expressly forbid, and directly attacked the majority opinion for "lacking even a thin veneer of law".[141] Lastly, Scalia faulted the actual writing in the opinion for "diminish[ing] this Court’s reputation for clear thinking and sober analysis" and for "descend[ing] from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."[142]

Justice Thomas
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a dissent rejecting substantive due process.
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justice Scalia. Thomas rejected the principle of substantive due process, which he claimed "invites judges to do exactly what the majority has done here—roa[m] at large in the constitutional field guided only by their personal views as to the fundamental rights protected by that document"; in doing so, the judiciary strays from the Constitution's text, subverts the democratic process, and "exalts judges at the expense of the People from whom they derive their authority."[143] Thomas argued that the only liberty that falls under Due Process Clause protection is freedom from "physical restraint".[144] Furthermore, Thomas insisted that "liberty has long been understood as individual freedom from governmental action, not as a right to a particular governmental entitlement" such as a marriage license.[145]According to Thomas, the majority's holding also undermines the political process and threatens religious liberty.[146] Lastly, Thomas took issue with the majority's view that marriage advances the dignity of same-sex couples. In his view, government is not capable of bestowing dignity; rather, dignity is a natural right that is innate within every person, a right that cannot be taken away even through slavery and internment camps.[147]

Justice Alito
Justice Samuel Alito wrote a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justices Scalia and Thomas. Invoking Washington v. Glucksberg, in which the Court stated the Due Process Clause protects only rights and liberties that are "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition", Alito claimed any "right" to same-sex marriage would not meet this definition; he chided the justices in the majority for going against judicial precedent and long-held tradition.[148] Alito defended the rationale of the states, accepting the premise that same-sex marriage bans serve to promote procreation and the optimal childrearing environment.[149] Alito expressed concern that the majority's opinion would be used to attack the beliefs of those who disagree with same-sex marriage, who "will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools", leading to "bitter and lasting wounds".[150] Expressing concern for judicial abuse, Alito concluded, "Most Americans—understandably—will cheer or lament today’s decision because of their views on the issue of same-sex marriage. But all Americans, whatever their thinking on that issue, should worry about what the majority’s claim of power portends."

 

[USincognito]

Wikipedia is actually fairly accurate, although I wouldn't use it as an academic source.

I agree. I was just noting OP is probably not rooted in a sound understanding of Constitutional law.

 

[TLK Valentine]

The lawyers below disagree with your lawyer

Wikipedia: Obergefell V Hodges

Dissenting opinions
Chief Justice Roberts


Justice Scalia


Justice Thomas


Justice Alito

Gee... you would think Wikipedia would've told you that 4 out of 9 doesn't cut it in SCOTUS...

 

[Allandavid]

Sorry but the original intent was not to provide "Same Sex Marriage" 5 Liberal Justices in their person bias and abuse of power have provided this, and forced it upon America.

The lawyers below disagree with your lawyer

Wikipedia: Obergefell V Hodges

Dissenting opinions

Chief Justice Roberts
In his dissent, Chief JusticeJohn Roberts argued same-sex marriage bans did not violate the Constitution.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justices Scalia and Thomas. Roberts accepted substantive due process, by which fundamental rights are protected through the Due Process Clause, but warned it has been misused over time to expand perceived fundamental rights, particularly in Dred Scott v. Sandford and Lochner v. New York.[130] Roberts stated that no prior decision had changed the core component of marriage, that it be between one man and one woman; consequently, same-sex marriage bans did not violate the Due Process Clause.[131] Roberts also rejected the notion that same-sex marriage bans violated a right to privacy, because they involved no government intrusion or subsequent punishment.[132] Addressing the Equal Protection Clause, Roberts stated that same-sex marriage bans did not violate the clause because they were rationally related to a governmental interest: preserving the traditional definition of marriage.[133]

More generally, Roberts stated that marriage, which he proposed had always had a "universal definition" as "the union of a man and a woman", arose to ensure successful childrearing.[134] Roberts criticized the majority opinion for relying on moral convictions rather than a constitutional basis, and for expanding fundamental rights without caution or regard for history.[135] He also suggested the majority opinion could be used to expand marriage to include legalized polygamy.[136] Roberts chided the majority for overriding the democratic process and for using the judiciary in a way that was not originally intended.[137] According to Roberts, supporters of same-sex marriage cannot win "true acceptance" for their side because the debate has now been closed.[138] Roberts also suggested the majority's opinion will ultimately lead to consequences for religious liberty, and he found the Court's language unfairly attacks opponents of same-sex marriage.[139]

Justice Scalia
Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justice Thomas. Scalia stated that the Court's decision effectively robs the people of "the freedom to govern themselves", noting that a rigorous debate on same-sex marriage had been taking place and that, by deciding the issue nationwide, the democratic process had been unduly halted.[140] Addressing the claimed Fourteenth Amendment violation, Scalia asserted that, because a same-sex marriage ban would not have been considered unconstitutional at the time of the Fourteenth Amendment's adoption, such bans are not unconstitutional today.[141] He claimed there was "no basis" for the Court's decision striking down legislation that the Fourteenth Amendment does not expressly forbid, and directly attacked the majority opinion for "lacking even a thin veneer of law".[141] Lastly, Scalia faulted the actual writing in the opinion for "diminish[ing] this Court’s reputation for clear thinking and sober analysis" and for "descend[ing] from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."[142]

Justice Thomas
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a dissent rejecting substantive due process.
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justice Scalia. Thomas rejected the principle of substantive due process, which he claimed "invites judges to do exactly what the majority has done here—roa[m] at large in the constitutional field guided only by their personal views as to the fundamental rights protected by that document"; in doing so, the judiciary strays from the Constitution's text, subverts the democratic process, and "exalts judges at the expense of the People from whom they derive their authority."[143] Thomas argued that the only liberty that falls under Due Process Clause protection is freedom from "physical restraint".[144] Furthermore, Thomas insisted that "liberty has long been understood as individual freedom from governmental action, not as a right to a particular governmental entitlement" such as a marriage license.[145]According to Thomas, the majority's holding also undermines the political process and threatens religious liberty.[146] Lastly, Thomas took issue with the majority's view that marriage advances the dignity of same-sex couples. In his view, government is not capable of bestowing dignity; rather, dignity is a natural right that is innate within every person, a right that cannot be taken away even through slavery and internment camps.[147]

Justice Alito
Justice Samuel Alito wrote a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justices Scalia and Thomas. Invoking Washington v. Glucksberg, in which the Court stated the Due Process Clause protects only rights and liberties that are "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition", Alito claimed any "right" to same-sex marriage would not meet this definition; he chided the justices in the majority for going against judicial precedent and long-held tradition.[148] Alito defended the rationale of the states, accepting the premise that same-sex marriage bans serve to promote procreation and the optimal childrearing environment.[149] Alito expressed concern that the majority's opinion would be used to attack the beliefs of those who disagree with same-sex marriage, who "will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools", leading to "bitter and lasting wounds".[150] Expressing concern for judicial abuse, Alito concluded, "Most Americans—understandably—will cheer or lament today’s decision because of their views on the issue of same-sex marriage. But all Americans, whatever their thinking on that issue, should worry about what the majority’s claim of power portends."

“Forced”...??

You do realise that a clear majority of American citizens are in favour of same-sex marriage...?

 

[NotreDame]

Sorry but the original intent was not to provide "Same Sex Marriage" 5 Liberal Justices in their person bias and abuse of power have provided this, and forced it upon America.

The lawyers below disagree with your lawyer

Wikipedia: Obergefell V Hodges

Dissenting opinions

Chief Justice Roberts
In his dissent, Chief JusticeJohn Roberts argued same-sex marriage bans did not violate the Constitution.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justices Scalia and Thomas. Roberts accepted substantive due process, by which fundamental rights are protected through the Due Process Clause, but warned it has been misused over time to expand perceived fundamental rights, particularly in Dred Scott v. Sandford and Lochner v. New York.[130] Roberts stated that no prior decision had changed the core component of marriage, that it be between one man and one woman; consequently, same-sex marriage bans did not violate the Due Process Clause.[131] Roberts also rejected the notion that same-sex marriage bans violated a right to privacy, because they involved no government intrusion or subsequent punishment.[132] Addressing the Equal Protection Clause, Roberts stated that same-sex marriage bans did not violate the clause because they were rationally related to a governmental interest: preserving the traditional definition of marriage.[133]

More generally, Roberts stated that marriage, which he proposed had always had a "universal definition" as "the union of a man and a woman", arose to ensure successful childrearing.[134] Roberts criticized the majority opinion for relying on moral convictions rather than a constitutional basis, and for expanding fundamental rights without caution or regard for history.[135] He also suggested the majority opinion could be used to expand marriage to include legalized polygamy.[136] Roberts chided the majority for overriding the democratic process and for using the judiciary in a way that was not originally intended.[137] According to Roberts, supporters of same-sex marriage cannot win "true acceptance" for their side because the debate has now been closed.[138] Roberts also suggested the majority's opinion will ultimately lead to consequences for religious liberty, and he found the Court's language unfairly attacks opponents of same-sex marriage.[139]

Justice Scalia
Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justice Thomas. Scalia stated that the Court's decision effectively robs the people of "the freedom to govern themselves", noting that a rigorous debate on same-sex marriage had been taking place and that, by deciding the issue nationwide, the democratic process had been unduly halted.[140] Addressing the claimed Fourteenth Amendment violation, Scalia asserted that, because a same-sex marriage ban would not have been considered unconstitutional at the time of the Fourteenth Amendment's adoption, such bans are not unconstitutional today.[141] He claimed there was "no basis" for the Court's decision striking down legislation that the Fourteenth Amendment does not expressly forbid, and directly attacked the majority opinion for "lacking even a thin veneer of law".[141] Lastly, Scalia faulted the actual writing in the opinion for "diminish[ing] this Court’s reputation for clear thinking and sober analysis" and for "descend[ing] from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."[142]

Justice Thomas
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a dissent rejecting substantive due process.
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justice Scalia. Thomas rejected the principle of substantive due process, which he claimed "invites judges to do exactly what the majority has done here—roa[m] at large in the constitutional field guided only by their personal views as to the fundamental rights protected by that document"; in doing so, the judiciary strays from the Constitution's text, subverts the democratic process, and "exalts judges at the expense of the People from whom they derive their authority."[143] Thomas argued that the only liberty that falls under Due Process Clause protection is freedom from "physical restraint".[144] Furthermore, Thomas insisted that "liberty has long been understood as individual freedom from governmental action, not as a right to a particular governmental entitlement" such as a marriage license.[145]According to Thomas, the majority's holding also undermines the political process and threatens religious liberty.[146] Lastly, Thomas took issue with the majority's view that marriage advances the dignity of same-sex couples. In his view, government is not capable of bestowing dignity; rather, dignity is a natural right that is innate within every person, a right that cannot be taken away even through slavery and internment camps.[147]

Justice Alito
Justice Samuel Alito wrote a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justices Scalia and Thomas. Invoking Washington v. Glucksberg, in which the Court stated the Due Process Clause protects only rights and liberties that are "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition", Alito claimed any "right" to same-sex marriage would not meet this definition; he chided the justices in the majority for going against judicial precedent and long-held tradition.[148] Alito defended the rationale of the states, accepting the premise that same-sex marriage bans serve to promote procreation and the optimal childrearing environment.[149] Alito expressed concern that the majority's opinion would be used to attack the beliefs of those who disagree with same-sex marriage, who "will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools", leading to "bitter and lasting wounds".[150] Expressing concern for judicial abuse, Alito concluded, "Most Americans—understandably—will cheer or lament today’s decision because of their views on the issue of same-sex marriage. But all Americans, whatever their thinking on that issue, should worry about what the majority’s claim of power portends."

“Original intent” is a bankrupt methodology for interpreting the Constitution. I said “original meaning.”

Furthermore, substance matters, not status, so the fact those are justices you cited doesn’t mean their view is correct.

Facts matter. The two articles I cited to have the better facts.

 

[Truth7t7]

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.

Liberty as drawn up in 1868 in the 14th amendment was to provide freedom from imprisonment/detainment physically, as Justice Thomas and the disenting opinion stated. There is no provision for same sex marriage. They had males and females at the time. Just as the protection of blacks and women to vote 15th & 17th amendments provided.

The only way same sex marriage will be provided a foundation is (Constitutional Amendment)

Until then, it can be challenged as it will be in the very near future in a conservative Supreme Court.

Several supreme court rulings have been reversed, read the news on same sex marriage, the Liberals are biting nails right now.

 

[Truth7t7]

“Original intent” is a bankrupt methodology for interpreting the Constitution. I said “original meaning.”

Furthermore, substance matters, not status, so the fact those are justices you cited doesn’t mean their view is correct.

Facts matter. The two articles I cited to have the better facts.

Those justices don't mean nothing?

There gonna be the ones to reverse Obergefell v Hodges

 

[Speedwell]

Those justices don't mean nothing?

There gonna be the ones to reverse Obergefell v Hodges

I'm curious about your comment that gay marriage was "forced" on America. Has anyone been forced to enter into a gay marriage?

 

[Albion]

I'm curious about your comment that gay marriage was "forced" on America. Has anyone been forced to enter into a gay marriage?

The question is about states being forced to treat, in law, so-called same-sex marriages as actual marriages--not about anyone being forced to enter into one. But you knew that.