Replies

We know what the intent was in passing the 14th Amendment, namely, to eliminate unequal treatment based on race or former status as a slave, or for that matter, against Republicans in the South. What proof is there that any legislator involved in the passage of the 14th Amendment had any “intent” to outlaw discrimination against homosexuals? Has any court addressed this question?

I had this argument with a coworker yesterday. It was disappointing.

She told me that if the authors of the 14th Amendment wanted to limit it to race-based issues, then they - being the intelligent law-writers that they were - would’ve expressly written such limits into the text of the amendment. She then told me that if I wanted to write “except for marriage law” limits into the amendment, I needed to amend it to explicitly say so.

I countered that the amendment’s authors probably could’ve never imagined that the country would delve into such depraved depths.

The whole conversation really pissed me off. She’s plenty conservative on a whole host of issues, so this one took me by surprise.. until she revealed that she has a younger homo brother.

What proof is there that any legislator involved in the passage of the 14th Amendment had any “intent” to outlaw discrimination against homosexuals? Has any court addressed this question?

There are many current issues where conservatives wind up saying "we know what they meant", or "we know the thinking of the 18th century which could only mean they must have meant..."

The Constitution does not explicity state that the Bible is the basis for our legal system.

In fact, the Constitution is silent on morality.

So regarding a moral issue like sodomy, the Constitution is an open-ended document. The laws Congress passes can thus impose all the immorality the current Congress wants to impose and yet still be Constitutionally valid. Laws Congress passes can even reverse prior moral viewpoints, then reverse yet again, as often as Congress likes.

I doubt very many in the general public at the time of its ratification, in their wildest dreams, would ever think the open-ended nature of the Constitution would be used to codify American acceptance of immorality into law.

IMHO, it's painfully obvious at this point that some very devious people at the time purposely wanted a very short and unspecific document, precisely so it would be completely open-ended and allow this sort of perversion of the nation far in the future.

The "Enlightenment" period was laid the foundation for our modern-day secular humanism, and at the forefront were the forerunners of today's financial elites, a.k.a., globalists, etc., which are supremely immoral people who wholly reject and defy God.

Some detailed study of the British East India Company is a good place to start to see the connections. Amazingly, the company's flag, decades prior to the American Revolution, bears a striking resemblence to the American flag.