LGBT

elleng

(141,926 posts)

14. You've misinterpreted the decision.

Sun Jun 24, 2012, 10:30 PM

Jun 2012

Loving established 'that the FREEDOM OF CHOICE TO MARRY not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination.'
(Emphasis mine.)

The Supreme Court established, in in Roe v. Wade, that a right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion, but that right must be balanced against the state's two legitimate interests in regulating abortions: protecting prenatal life and protecting women's health.

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