Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Hoodat

> “Plessy v. Ferguson was not argued as a Tenth Amendment issue”

You’re wrong on that. It was argued from the state side as a 10th Amendment issue.

“Arguments in favor of the Separate Car Act: The act does not violate the 13th Amendment; that amendment was created to end slavery and forced servitude, and courts in the past have recognized that separate accommodations do not amount to either. Also, since the act applies equally to blacks and to whites, and requires equal accommodations for both, it is not discriminatory and does not violate the 14th Amendment. The Separate Car Act is a reasonable and justified exercise of Louisiana police power—***granted through the 10th Amendment to the Constitution***—to ensure security and social order.”

http://ethanlewis.org/history/downloads/plessy.pdf

Your original post implied a Marriage Amendment would not hold up in the same manner as Tenth Amendment cases ostensibly as an attempt to discourage or to buttress wishful thinking into your homosexual ring.

By discussing 14th Amendment concerns you show that you equate homosexual rights with civil rights of blacks. This is the tactic used by the Left but which is rejected by blacks themselves.

The fact is that seeking protection under the 14th Amendment is a ploy by homosexual fascists to fold themselves in with the long struggle by Black Americans. And Black Americans are not welcoming them to do so. In fact Black Americans have explicitly and aggressively expressed that homosexuals are NOT welcome to seek cover under amendments that were results of their long struggle. Homosexuals never experienced what Black Americans experienced.


142 posted on 10/06/2014 2:23:37 PM PDT by Hostage (ARTICLE V)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies ]


To: Hostage
By discussing 14th Amendment concerns you show that you equate homosexual rights with civil rights of blacks.

Uh no, not even close. Traditional marriage laws do not violate equal protection since they do not take into account the sexual preference of those wishing to marry. Thus as a male, the prohibition for me to marry another man applies regardless of my sexual preference.

The current spate of judicial activism that is overturning established state law makes a mockery of the Constitution. And passage of another Amendment isn't going to stop it. These judges are already showing that they do not give a damn about what the Constitution says.

151 posted on 10/06/2014 2:56:44 PM PDT by Hoodat (Article 4, Section 4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson