LGBT

Pab Sungenis

(9,612 posts)

13. Did you read the text you quoted?

Sun Jun 24, 2012, 09:21 PM

Jun 2012

The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

There's the text. Loving established the right to marry.

Even if Kagan was just being disingenuous the fact that her nomination was allowed to stand after that remark was a slap in the face to every LGBT*.*. A similar comment about abortion would never be tolerated.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

56 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Elena Kagan says: [View all] Pab Sungenis Jun 2012 OP

isn't it also implied that... 108vcd Jun 2012 #1

Not the way she singled us out. Pab Sungenis Jun 2012 #2

Specificity, is a trait of Supreme Court Justices. That is how they talk. WingDinger Jun 2012 #4

We'll see how she votes. Pab Sungenis Jun 2012 #8

Quite right. elleng Jun 2012 #12

Quite right. elleng Jun 2012 #3

Wrong. Pab Sungenis Jun 2012 #7

No. elleng Jun 2012 #11

Did you read the text you quoted? Pab Sungenis Jun 2012 #13

You've misinterpreted the decision. elleng Jun 2012 #14

So you would have no problem with a Democratic nominee who said Pab Sungenis Jun 2012 #15

I am an attorney, elleng Jun 2012 #16

Answer... the... question. Pab Sungenis Jun 2012 #17

I pay little or no attention to what nominees say elleng Jun 2012 #18

ANSWER THE QUESTION. Pab Sungenis Jun 2012 #19

I am not seeking your vote, elleng Jun 2012 #20

ANSWER THE QUESTION. Pab Sungenis Jun 2012 #22

Your right to privacy cannot be infringed upon. Negative right, not positive. WingDinger Jun 2012 #25

I wasn't asking you Pab Sungenis Jun 2012 #26

That is a disingeneous setup of the question. WingDinger Jun 2012 #28

you are changing the subject in your own thread lol nt msongs Jun 2012 #53

The reasoning is that your race is a trait of you that cannot be changed. JDPriestly Jun 2012 #24

Loving was decided in 1967, so probably no 'generations of lawyers there, elleng Jun 2012 #30

Even if it is only subject to intermediate scrutiny, there is no rational JDPriestly Jun 2012 #32

That's true, but the elephant in the room here is that reason and logic are not primary Zorra Jun 2012 #54

Definitely "generations" Creideiki Jun 2012 #42

Generations of LAWYERS! elleng Jun 2012 #43

Yes. I know. I teach math. I know how to add. Creideiki Jun 2012 #46

OK, if a math teacher acts me to double check my work, I will. elleng Jun 2012 #47

We covered Loving in my Business Law class for my MBA, and that's fairly recent. Creideiki Jun 2012 #56

Gender discrimination - yes. closeupready Jun 2012 #34

I agree the Constitution is silent on the issue of marriage "rights" Swede Atlanta Jun 2012 #52

Marriage is a fundamental right. JDPriestly Jun 2012 #21

I now ask you the same question. Pab Sungenis Jun 2012 #23

I would not like it whether the topic was abortion or same-sex marriage. JDPriestly Jun 2012 #33

marriage isn't mentioned in the constitutuin at all. notadmblnd Jun 2012 #51

So vote for Rmoney. He'll fix it right up. OffWithTheirHeads Jun 2012 #5

Thank you for saying that. Pab Sungenis Jun 2012 #6

There SHOULD be a federal right to same sex marriage bluestateguy Jun 2012 #9

Obama may be the most pro-gay President in history, but Pab Sungenis Jun 2012 #10

Even if she eventually votes for gay marriage ? n/t PoliticAverse Jun 2012 #27

Even then. Pab Sungenis Jun 2012 #29

"He should have pulled her at that point." laconicsax Jun 2012 #31

Context is in response to a trick question One_Life_To_Give Jun 2012 #35

Trick question or not Pab Sungenis Jun 2012 #36

The answer is fact. There isn't. Fearless Jun 2012 #40

I'm so glad we have you here to remind us that we don't deserve equal rights. Creideiki Jun 2012 #44

No one said that, SpartanDem Jun 2012 #48

Please reread my post... Fearless Jun 2012 #49

Just to be fair swimboy Jun 2012 #37

I will reserve my judgment of Kagan until she rules on gay marriage. beyurslf Jun 2012 #38

There is no constitutional right to ANY marriage. Fearless Jun 2012 #39

Bingo Sentath Jun 2012 #41

And you would have been just as wrong. Creideiki Jun 2012 #45

Would you point out the part of the Constitution where... Fearless Jun 2012 #50

What if she said "There's no marriage equality in California"? Iggo Jun 2012 #55