I did not have anything to drink and you statement is not crystal clear.
Trying to deny entire group of rights, and more recently trying to entire groups special rights.....
Does that make sense? No it does not.
Trying
what to entire groups special rights? GIVE? TAKE AWAY? What?
You can say you were not being condescending, but by stating, " 'Course I know the Constitution." after stating your opinion (that is missing a word) and someone asking about that opinion (missing a word) does appear to be insinuating that your opinion means more than someones opinion or question because you know and they do not know the constitution.
(though I will give you the small fact that it is true that individuals have rights, but I do not think that is in question to this whole back and forth
)
Yes, it makes sense.
In the past, this country has denied entire groups of rights, which violated their individual rights. Not allowing women to vote is an example of that.
Making same-sex marriage legal on the federal on the federal level is an example of giving a group special rights. I'll explain...
First off...just because you have a right does not mean that it isn't subject to regulation. The First Amendment gives all individuals the right to of free speech and to peacefully assemble; but that doesn't mean government can't place certain regulations on it such as requiring a permit for marches or demonstrations. Free speech does not give you the right to liable someone. Also, our individual rights do not allow us to deny or restrict another person's rights. An example of this happening would be if you were holding a demonstration to protest my line of sexy thongs and it blocked me from getting to my home.
Marriage was ruled a right some years ago by a federal court. That ruling could be challenged by the higher court, but as far as I know it was not. But even if it is a right under our constitution, the states had the authority to regulate it so long as the regulations did not deny individual rights. Basically, that meant every one had the right to marry. The equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment guaranteed that any regulations must apply equally to all. Some of the regulations (varying from state to state) were age limits, limits on marrying blood relatives, and of course some states not allowing marriage to a person of the same sex.
So prior to the SCOTUS ruling on SSM, every one of us had the right to marry, subject to regulations by the states that applied equally to all. So to be accurate; a gay person had the same right to marry that you or I did, and was subject to the same regulations. By ruling as they did, the SCOTUS gave homosexuals special rights, in that they overruled just the state regulations that applied to that group. The ruling did not enforce an individual right, it created a new group right.
Scalia was absolutely correct in his dissent, if not a bit grouchy in his demeanor. There was nothing in the constitution that gave the court authority to essentially create a new right, and there is actually some potential danger in doing what they did, that the ruling will be further used as precedent for more special rights. In a statement he made regarding congress well before the court took the case up, and I'm paraphrasing; If you want same-sex to be legal, then pas a law making it legal. But the Constitution doesn't say anything about it. He was absolutely right.
So regardless of whether you are for or against same-sex marriage, and I really don't care which way you feel about it; the ruling was an overreach by the Supreme Court. It was made a clear case of justices using their personal agendas to essentially create a new right.
too much tonight. My statement was crystal clear.
