Another One Bites The Dust!

[lilpixieofterror]

Where in the Constitution, I meant.

The Constitution isn't the only thing the founding fathers wrote. Limits upon marriage didn't seem to catch them as being 'unconstitutional'.

[Psychic Missile]

The Constitution isn't the only thing the founding fathers wrote. Limits upon marriage didn't seem to catch them as being 'unconstitutional'.

Neither did slavery.

[lilpixieofterror]

Neither did slavery.

And it wasn't, until an amendment came along. That is how it used to be done. That and laws were changed as times changed. Today though, it seems just saying that the constitution says something, that it clearly didn't, is the way to go.

[Psychic Missile]

And it wasn't, until an amendment came along. That is how it used to be done. That and laws were changed as times changed. Today though, it seems just saying that the constitution says something, that it clearly didn't, is the way to go.

Many people feel that the 14th Amendment allows for gay marriage.

[Epoetker]

Many people feel that the 14th Amendment allows for gay marriage.

Many more people believe that it does not, and they're statistically blacker than the people who do, so you lose.

[lilpixieofterror]

Many people feel that the 14th Amendment allows for gay marriage.

And they would be at a loss to explain how the same people who wrote it, also kept laws in the books that made homosexuality illegal. Of course, I know the real reason is that we just make the constitution say whatever we want it to say and totally ignore the general rules of interpretation that apply to everything else. If you want to make gay marriage legal, that is fine and you do have the right, per the constitution, to petition the government for changes you want and the free speech to do it with. It is just silly though to make the constitution say whatever you want it to say though. By that logic, laws against incest and polygamy shouldn't exist either, but they reason they do is because popular opinion hasn't changed against these two views yet.

[Psychic Missile]

And they would be at a loss to explain how the same people who wrote it, also kept laws in the books that made homosexuality illegal. Of course, I know the real reason is that we just make the constitution say whatever we want it to say and totally ignore the general rules of interpretation that apply to everything else. If you want to make gay marriage legal, that is fine and you do have the right, per the constitution, to petition the government for changes you want and the free speech to do it with. It is just silly though to make the constitution say whatever you want it to say though. By that logic, laws against incest and polygamy shouldn't exist either, but they reason they do is because popular opinion hasn't changed against these two views yet.

So would you be opposed, for example, to applying any current Constitutional Amendments to the internet or computers? What about applying more than half of the Amendments to airplanes? Does the First Amendment not apply to black people because that's not what the founders had in mind? My point is there is nothing wrong with looking to the Constitution and applying it to new legal dilemmas. It makes no sense to not use old law as precedence. It doesn't legally matter what people want when they write it law. What matters is what the laws actually say.