And pointless to argue one way or the other. Saying "well they wouldn't have passed it" isnt really important anyway. Some of the original authors owned slaves, too--that doesn't mean that we shouldn't talk about slavery because they might not have approved.
Fairly certain you've twisted my words to arrive here.
No, I was addressing how you seem to intimately know what the authors would and wouldn't have wanted.
Original intent matters, which is what I'm saying. Not that a discussion shouldn't be had. But it's vitally important to understand original intent so laws that are written and passed with the understanding that it meant X aren't twisted into meaning Y a few generations down the road because it's convenient.
Why else bother with the passing of laws if we can simply shove our hand up their backsides and work their mouths like a puppet to mean whatever we like?
No one is twisting any meaning here.
If you want to enshrine same-sex pairings in the Constitution then pass a new amendment because the 14th was passed with the understanding that it extended the civil rights already enjoyed by Americans to slaves (who were by all definitions already Americans). It didn't create new rights, and was never intended to be read as having done so.
So what you're saying is that the amendment protecting minorities from harmful treatment by the states (the 14th amendment states that States shall not make laws infringing on any citizen's civil rights, etc) should ONLY apply to freed black slaves?
Let's have a thought experiment. Ignore other laws for a moment--if Ohio made a law preventing naturalized citizens, originally from Mexico, from starting businesses there, you would say that they are not protected by the 14th amendment because it only applies to slaves?
No, it is you who is applying too strict an interpretation to it. If it was intended to only apply to slaves, the text itself would specify as such
The Supreme Court has no authority to inject itself here because the Constitution doesn't give the Federal government the power to define what is or is not marriage. The best decision the Court can deliver is to strike down Federal involvement in the issue, returning it to the states to decide for themselves.
Actually, it is the job of the Supreme Court, among other things, to decide what is constitutional and what isn't. If, for example, it ruled that states cannot impose bans on gay marriage as it violated the 14th amendment--well, that would be completely within its bounds.
But since when has the Constitution really restrained any branch of government?
Once again, the SC would simply be ruling on the constitutionality of state-level law, so I'm not sure where you think they've overstepped their bounds.
Man, y'all really think that such strict construction is any way practical? Thought that should have died when Jefferson made the Louisiana Purchase.
Shoot, it wasn't even agreed upon during the founding. You all seem really sure that "it's the way it's supposed to be."