3 ms·

Neither gay rights nor abortion are enumerated as rights in the US Constitution. Sure, some appointed judges have found ways to reason those rights out of the t

Neither gay rights nor abortion are enumerated as rights in the US Constitution. Sure, some appointed judges have found ways to reason those rights out of the text. But the fact is that rights not enumerated there are left up to the states to decide on. We may not like it but if we want to protect these basic rights we need to go through the established Democratic processes to update the US constitution.

krapp 4y ago
>But the fact is that rights not enumerated there are left up to the states to decide on. We may not like it but if we want to protect these basic rights we need to go through the established Democratic processes to update the US constitution. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. - Ninth Amendment Gay marriage, abortion and the right to bodily autonomy that underpin them are inalienable rights retained by the people, and states only have authority to regulate those rights with the consent of the people. This is not "left to the states" any more than any other unenumerated right is. And note - gay marriage and abortion have majority support among the American populace, and in many states where they have currently been outlawed. Calling for a Constitutional Amendment for this is a red herring, as rights do not have to be enumerated in the Constitution to exist. The Constitution doesn't even support the Supreme Court's right of judicial review.
- CodeSgt 4y ago
  Gay marriage isn't illegal in any state.
  - andrekandre 4y ago
    not yet, but interracial marriage historically was [0], so why should it be any different for gay marriage? (genuinely curious) [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interracial_marriage_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interracial_marriage_in_the_Un...
    - CodeSgt 4y ago
      Slavery was also historically legal but isn't any longer. I don't get what interracial marriage being illegal once upon a time has to do with anything.
      - andrekandre 4y ago
        interracial marriage was illegal in many states up until the late 60's -hardly once upon a time- and i might add that republicans are known recently to say they are after interracial marriage as well [1] [1] https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/braun-supreme-court-interracial-marriage-state-rights https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/braun-supreme-court-inter...
        CodeSgt 4y ago
        Doesn't sound like they're after interracial marriage, sounds like they want it to be left to the states to decide, as Republicans tend to feel on most issues. Stop acting like there's some mainstream Republican movement to ban gay and interracial marriage, it's obviously not true when you have to sensationalize the titles of your own linked articles. Edit: And it's not even "they" want it to be left to the states. It's a single individual who even mentioned anything about it, and even they "backpeddled" (i.e clarified what they said after the media twisted their words for sensationalism).
        andrekandre 4y ago
        > they want it to be left to the states this is a dog-whistle for "we want to ban it in our red states", just like abortion... once obergefell is overturned, expect same-sex marriage bans to follow soon-after (probably starting with texas, florida) and republicans are already changing their platforms to include even stronger anti-gay platforms [1] as has been historically (ill just link to their platform directly) [2] [1] https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/politics/2022/06/19/427277/texas-republican-party-includes-anti-lgbt-ideology-in-its-new-platform/ https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/politics/20... --- [2] https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/2016-republican-party-platform https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/2016-republican-pa... Traditional marriage and family, based on marriage between one man and one woman, is the foundation for a free society and has for millennia been entrusted with rearing children and instilling cultural values. We condemn the Supreme Court's ruling in United States v. Windsor, which wrongly removed the ability of Congress to define marriage policy in federal law. We also condemn the Supreme Court's lawless ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, which in the words of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, was a "judicial Putsch" — full of "silly extravagances" — that reduced "the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Storey to the mystical aphorisms of a fortune cookie." In Obergefell, five unelected lawyers robbed 320 million Americans of their legitimate constitutional authority to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
- xienze 4y ago
  > and states only have authority to regulate those rights with the consent of the people. And guess what -- in states like Alabama, the people of that state have elected politicians that choose to regulate things like abortion in a manner different than what would be the case in a state like California. On the flip side, you have states/municipalities that regulate the second amendment -- something DEFINITELY in the constitution, and not in a "squint really hard and it sorta makes sense" way like abortion -- much more stringently than other states. The system is working as intended. The issue is that you're expecting every state to have the exact same cultural attitudes towards things like abortion. They don't. The majority of people in certain states are against it, and they have voted accordingly.
- jimmydorry 4y ago
  The constitution delineates the limits of government power. It is a red herring to insist that a constitutional ammendment is not required, when a clear "government may not deny any persons right to bodily autonamy or sexual preference" would ideally stamp out any government interference in such matters. You are right that all rights are retained by the people, but what has people mad / worried is the states legislating against the will of the majority (specifically because there is nothing stopping them from doing so at a federal or constitutional level).

krapp 4y ago

>But the fact is that rights not enumerated there are left up to the states to decide on. We may not like it but if we want to protect these basic rights we need to go through the established Democratic processes to update the US constitution. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. - Ninth Amendment Gay marriage, abortion and the right to bodily autonomy that underpin them are inalienable rights retained by the people, and states only have authority to regulate those rights with the consent of the people. This is not "left to the states" any more than any other unenumerated right is. And note - gay marriage and abortion have majority support among the American populace, and in many states where they have currently been outlawed. Calling for a Constitutional Amendment for this is a red herring, as rights do not have to be enumerated in the Constitution to exist. The Constitution doesn't even support the Supreme Court's right of judicial review.

CodeSgt 4y ago
Gay marriage isn't illegal in any state.
- andrekandre 4y ago
  not yet, but interracial marriage historically was [0], so why should it be any different for gay marriage? (genuinely curious) [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interracial_marriage_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interracial_marriage_in_the_Un...
  - CodeSgt 4y ago
    Slavery was also historically legal but isn't any longer. I don't get what interracial marriage being illegal once upon a time has to do with anything.
    - andrekandre 4y ago
      interracial marriage was illegal in many states up until the late 60's -hardly once upon a time- and i might add that republicans are known recently to say they are after interracial marriage as well [1] [1] https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/braun-supreme-court-interracial-marriage-state-rights https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/braun-supreme-court-inter...
      - CodeSgt 4y ago
        Doesn't sound like they're after interracial marriage, sounds like they want it to be left to the states to decide, as Republicans tend to feel on most issues. Stop acting like there's some mainstream Republican movement to ban gay and interracial marriage, it's obviously not true when you have to sensationalize the titles of your own linked articles. Edit: And it's not even "they" want it to be left to the states. It's a single individual who even mentioned anything about it, and even they "backpeddled" (i.e clarified what they said after the media twisted their words for sensationalism).
        andrekandre 4y ago
        > they want it to be left to the states this is a dog-whistle for "we want to ban it in our red states", just like abortion... once obergefell is overturned, expect same-sex marriage bans to follow soon-after (probably starting with texas, florida) and republicans are already changing their platforms to include even stronger anti-gay platforms [1] as has been historically (ill just link to their platform directly) [2] [1] https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/politics/2022/06/19/427277/texas-republican-party-includes-anti-lgbt-ideology-in-its-new-platform/ https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/politics/20... --- [2] https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/2016-republican-party-platform https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/2016-republican-pa... Traditional marriage and family, based on marriage between one man and one woman, is the foundation for a free society and has for millennia been entrusted with rearing children and instilling cultural values. We condemn the Supreme Court's ruling in United States v. Windsor, which wrongly removed the ability of Congress to define marriage policy in federal law. We also condemn the Supreme Court's lawless ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, which in the words of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, was a "judicial Putsch" — full of "silly extravagances" — that reduced "the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Storey to the mystical aphorisms of a fortune cookie." In Obergefell, five unelected lawyers robbed 320 million Americans of their legitimate constitutional authority to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
xienze 4y ago
> and states only have authority to regulate those rights with the consent of the people. And guess what -- in states like Alabama, the people of that state have elected politicians that choose to regulate things like abortion in a manner different than what would be the case in a state like California. On the flip side, you have states/municipalities that regulate the second amendment -- something DEFINITELY in the constitution, and not in a "squint really hard and it sorta makes sense" way like abortion -- much more stringently than other states. The system is working as intended. The issue is that you're expecting every state to have the exact same cultural attitudes towards things like abortion. They don't. The majority of people in certain states are against it, and they have voted accordingly.
jimmydorry 4y ago
The constitution delineates the limits of government power. It is a red herring to insist that a constitutional ammendment is not required, when a clear "government may not deny any persons right to bodily autonamy or sexual preference" would ideally stamp out any government interference in such matters. You are right that all rights are retained by the people, but what has people mad / worried is the states legislating against the will of the majority (specifically because there is nothing stopping them from doing so at a federal or constitutional level).