Karen Davidsayer is a local back home who wrote this letter to the editor of the local paper complaining that it isn’t conservative enough because it has a few liberal voices every now and again (and hinting at a boycott). She’s a real winner. The other day she got into it with my father and another local, Abbot Kaplan, on the subject of same-sex marriage.
Education would’ve ensued if Davidsayer was wanting to learn about the Constitution and not just insist it says what she wants:
Just what does the US Constitution say about ‘gay marriage’???
Karen, check out the 14th amendment, especially the equal protection clause and maybe do some additional reading about it and what it means.
So Abbot, under the 14th as listed below, it states that no state can deprive a person of life, so if you want equal protection aka gay marriage, then abortion should have the same protection…….you think? 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.
When they can’t debate the issue at hand, they always try to move the goal posts to another issue. The issue of abortion has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue of gay marriage. The only reason to bring it up is as a red herring because you don’t have logic, legality, reason, or evidence with which to debate the issue of same sex marriage. By the way, those who are aborted don’t fit the description you provided in the fourteenth amendment: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States”, for they are neither born nor naturalized.
As to “Just what does the US Constitution say about ‘gay marriage’???” In the fourteenth amendment that YOU posted. Let me quote from it for you: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof (this includes the homosexual ones)” and “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges (this would include marriage), and ” nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws (this would include marriage, since there are 1138 federal laws, benefits, and privileges that require “marriage”). The Constitution didn’t have to individually list everything imaginable, it provided a description, and same sex marriage fits within that description.
No Karen, you focused on the due process clause; I directed you to the equal protections clause. The due process clause says that life, liberty or property may not be deprived except by due process of law. Abortion is handled via due process of law. The equal protection clause means what it says. In the case of marriage, it means that if a straight consenting couple has a legal right to marry then a gay consenting couple has the same right.
Karen, I am pretty well read on the Constitution. I’m not just winging it here. Mr Eberhard is equally well read in it, perhaps more so than I am. On the other hand, you seem not to be quite familiar with the document and seem to be shooting from the hip. So far I have taken you comments seriously and have courteously directed you to the sources you need to read and study. I’ve done that for free. I can’t speak for Mr Eberhard, but as far as I am concerned If you want further instructions from me, I will have to charge you for them and I don’t work cheap. So please, do some serious reading.
So why are both you John and Abbot so focused on ‘gay marriage’? Do you have a dog in this fight? Are you both involved with this? Just asking as you seem to be go engaged on this subject. Usually one takes on a purpose from a personal view, so wondering.,,,
I’m for civil rights for black people, too, but I’m not black. I’m against cruelty to animals, but I’m not a dog. Why would you even ask such a personal question? What possible difference could it make? Homophobes try to cast aspersions on people by implying they are gay. It’s a despicable tactic that says a lot about the person trying it. It is a desperate attempt to smear someone–although there’s nothing wrong with being gay, a lot of ignorant,backward, hate-filled bigots think there is. I suppose when you have no logical, reasoned arguments with a little evidence for them, this is the sort of thing you go with. It is a tactic that says you have no good reasons for the legal denial of same sex civil marriage. You lose, Karen. Although I’m not gay, I do have “a dog in this fight” because I have empathy and compassion, as well as respect for the Constitution and equal rights for American citizens. By the way, my wife and I celebrated our 39th anniversary two days ago.
All I can add to what John said is that this is a human rights issue so yes I have a dog in this fight.
When you’ve had your ignorance exposed (along with your eagerness to make decisions governing other people’s lives from within that ignorance), it’s always a good idea to start playing the victim – because your opponents don’t want to look mean.
Hey guys cut the nastiness, I was just wondering why everyone was having such a fight over gayness. We can reason, but name calling is so immature!!!!
It’s like Batman using a smoke grenade. Wait, more like faking an injury while talking shit about how you would’ve won the fight. Yeah, that’s it.