> Neal Krasnoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Wrong. The 14th Amendment was passed to ensure that black people enjoy > the same rights as whites under the law. There is no historical > precedent for same sex marriage in Anglo-American jurisprudence, nor in > our culture. The judges and petty officials are making it up as they go > along. > > Corrected to: "There is no historical precedent for same sex marriage > in Anglo-American jurisprudence,"
Neal is repeating what I believe is a fallacy. The words "race," "black," "white," "Caucasian," etc. are nowhere to be found in the 14th Amendement. Section 1 plainly refers to equal protection, without qualification: "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." In our system (at least since Marbury vs. Madison) courts decide how the Constitution's electorally ratified principles apply. You can argue whether gay marriage is guaranteed by equal protection (I believe it is, Neal doesn't), but you can't limit the 14th amendment to race, sorry. Let's litigate! In Mpls and elsewhere! David Brauer Kingfield REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
