Same Sex marriage 14th amendment

Quote: AZDuffman

The real danger of it is that such a precedent can be used to stretch the clause to ever more things it was not intended for.

The primary purpose of the 14th amendment (1868) was to reverse the Supreme Court's decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which had held that Americans descended from African slaves could not be citizens of the United States. The Dred Scott decision (decided March 6, 1857) is often considered the worst SCOTUS decision ever made as it was a significant factor in the divisions that led to the civil war. Dred Scott was given his freedom voluntarily by his owner in May 1857, took a job as a porter in a hotel in St. Louis where he became a minor celebrity, and died of pneumonia a year later.


Since the 14th amendment stated: "nor shall any State ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" the "legal doctrine" of "separate but equal" was established in the 1890s to justify segregation as long as facilities were equal. In Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Supreme Court determined that "separate but equal" notion was unconstitutional for American public schools and educational facilities.[

The "equal protection" clause became the basis for challenging "state laws" the criminilized practices that were legal in some states, but not others including"interracial marriage", "prosecution of certain sexual practices which were made illegal without reference to gay or straight sex, but were only prosecuted in cases of gay sex, "abortion", and "same sex marriage".

There are some strange aspects to the Dred Scott case, so I went to the wikipedia article to try to be more informed

What a dog's breakfast that whole business was! I have to take my hat off to anybody who can wade through all that stuff. For that reason, I can have some of this wrong, but here are some interesting things I gleaned:

* You might think that Scott sued for his freedom while he was on free soil. Wrong.
* Apparently Missouri courts *had been* friendly to similar cases, and other slaves had won their freedom on similar bases ... now this was changing
* A person born to a slave was free if that baby was born in a free state [but this might have depended on that states laws?] and one such child of the Scotts' was such, technically anyway
* Justice Taney bears the brunt of current odium about the decision, but only two justices dissented
* state laws about freeing slaves once brought into that state must have been odium indeed to the slave states. You don't seem to hear much about that, but I think Taney and others were in tune with it .
* For some reason in order for the court to decide against Scott, it was necessary to totally rip away all rights of someone previously a slave, and yes, a negro slave in particular.
* To just decide that Scott should lose his case because he was now back in a slave state makes sense to me*, but apparently such a simple statement/decision made no sense legally ... maybe you have to understand law generally better than I do

* I'm not saying I would approve of that, I'm just dispassionately trying to understand what had to be the legal basis for a decision these justices wanted to make anyway

I'm Still Standing, Yeah, Yeah, Yeah [it's an old guy chant for me]

Quote: odiousgambit

* A person born to a slave was free if that baby was born in a free state [but this might have depended on that states laws?] and one such child of the Scotts' was such, technically anyway

I think this was some of the case in the more northern states. I did some research once and in some places it was a sort of "reverse grandfather" system. My thought is if someone is a slave with a benevolent maser it protected them to remain a slave vs. saying, "you are free, good luck!" For example say I have an older slave that I inherited from my parents. Say I do not support slavery but this slave has served my family for life. He is better off if allowed to live in a small cottage on my property as my slave than take his chances on being snatched and sent south to work. He is a slave in name only for the most part, maybe doing some handyman work or whatever.

His kid, however, stands more of a chance as a free man.

I saw all kinds of this stuff when I did title research.

Quote: odiousgambit

There are some strange aspects to the Dred Scott case, so I went to the wikipedia article to try to be more informed

What a dog's breakfast that whole business was! I have to take my hat off to anybody who can wade through all that stuff. For that reason, I can have some of this wrong, but here are some interesting things I gleaned:

* You might think that Scott sued for his freedom while he was on free soil. Wrong.
* Apparently Missouri courts *had been* friendly to similar cases, and other slaves had won their freedom on similar bases ... now this was changing
* A person born to a slave was free if that baby was born in a free state [but this might have depended on that states laws?] and one such child of the Scotts' was such, technically anyway
* Justice Taney bears the brunt of current odium about the decision, but only two justices dissented
* state laws about freeing slaves once brought into that state must have been odium indeed to the slave states. You don't seem to hear much about that, but I think Taney and others were in tune with it .
* For some reason in order for the court to decide against Scott, it was necessary to totally rip away all rights of someone previously a slave, and yes, a negro slave in particular.
* To just decide that Scott should lose his case because he was now back in a slave state makes sense to me*, but apparently such a simple statement/decision made no sense legally ... maybe you have to understand law generally better than I do

* I'm not saying I would approve of that, I'm just dispassionately trying to understand what had to be the legal basis for a decision these justices wanted to make anyway

I'm in Lexington KY
Learning a lot about the slave trade
Saw a historical marker downtown for a long gone slave jail. Lexington was a major hub for Slave jails. Slave patrols roamed Kentucky for any Blacks regardless if runaway or free. Take them to the jail in Lexington and get paid. Jailers waited to their jails were completely filled then shipped them south to the markets to be sold.

Quote: AZDuffman

Correct. The perfect example is people saying "gays were not free to marry." When you point out that they always were and many did, just they had to marry someone of the opposite sex the people get angry and say "not free to marry who they wanted to!" Then you point out that straight people could not marry someone of the same sex either.

Nothing was more equal than that!

The 2015 decision ignored law and ruled on emotions. The real danger of it is that such a precedent can be used to stretch the clause to ever more things it was not intended for.

You're free to own a gun, as long as it's a musket. BUT, if you can update the specifics of modern "arms" no reason you can't update the specifics of modern marriage.

Quote: rxwine

You're free to own a gun, as long as it's a musket. BUT, if you can update the specifics of modern "arms" no reason you can't update the specifics of modern marriage.

Then why did they not try to pass a law to update it?

What on earth do muskets have to do with changing the definition of marriage to appease gays?

Quote: AZDuffman

Then why did they not try to pass a law to update it?

What on earth do muskets have to do with changing the definition of marriage to appease gays?

That's the point. Supreme Court didn't have to rewrite anything to encompass modern arms that didn't even exist at the time.

Quote: rxwine

That's the point. Supreme Court didn't have to rewrite anything to encompass modern arms that didn't even exist at the time.

I still do not see the connection to changing the definition of marriage.

Quote: AZDuffman

I still do not see the connection to changing the definition of marriage.

Quote:

Prior to 1996, the federal government did not define marriage; any marriage recognized by a state was recognized, even if that marriage was not recognized by one or more states, as was the case until 1967 with interracial marriage, which some states banned by statute.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States#:~:text=On%20June%2026%2C%202015%2C%20the,Hodges.

Quote: rxwine

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States#:~:text=On%20June%2026%2C%202015%2C%20the,Hodges.

That is because everyone knew "marriage" was always about one man and one woman. The gay lobby likes to pretend they did not demand it be changed to give them special rights.

If it was not defined, then why were gays not being married to each other in the 1700s? Can you or the gay lobby answer that?