Replies

With all due respect to Mr. Cook and his parents, as with many other people his parents evidently did not make sure that their son was taught about 10th Amendment-protected state powers versus constitutionally unprotected “rights” like gay agenda issues.

In fact, such state laws are based on Section 1 of the 14th Amendment.

14th Amendment, Section 1:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws [emphases added].

Regarding pro-gay, PC interpretations of the Equal Protections Clause also in Section 1, the Supreme Court has clarified that the 14th Amendment did not add any new rights to the Constitution.

“3. The right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities. It simply furnishes additional guaranty for the protection of such as the citizen already had [emphasis added].” —Minor v. Happersett, 1874.

Note that Court’s clarification compliment’s the official clarification of Section 1 by John Bingham in the congressional record, Bingham the main author of Section 1.

“Mr. Speaker, this House may safely follow the example of the makers of the Constitution and the builders of the Republic, by passing laws for enforcing all the privileges and immunities of the United States as guaranteed by the amended Constitution and expressly enumerated in the Constitution [emphasis added].” —John Bingham, Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 42nd Congress, 1st Session. (See lower half of third column.)

And since the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect gay agenda issues, the states are free to make laws which discriminate against such issues, as long as such laws do not also unreasonably abridge constitutionally enumerated rights.

In fact, by making such laws some states are protecting themselves from abridging enumerated rights like religious expression, some pro-gay activist states having already unthinkingly violated the 14th Amendment where constitutionally protected religious expression is concerned imo.