That is because it would deal with the direct issue 14th was created to deal with, which is my point. If the 14 can be applied to being over wieght then it would offer the same protection to overwieght people as it does to minorites. This is prety simple concept here and I am not sure why you are having difiiculty with it. You claimed the 14th wouldn't apply to airlines now you agree that is it does but claim I am not supporting my argument. I think you may not understand the concept of supporting an argument.




The second amendment was written to allow civilians to arm themselves the second was written to allow for the free expression of political point of views. In neither case has the courts changed the intent of the law they have merely clarified it to come in line with changing technology. There were no assault weapons when those amendments were passed and giant corporations did not get involved in directly in campaigns but there were homosexuals. If the intent had been to provide protection to homosexuals as a protected group they would been a record of that being discussed at the time.



It is because the 14th is written so broadly that we have to cautious of how much it is allowed to expand. It is written so broadly that the courts can use it to justify virtually any actions.




And in how many of those states was it done through legislative action?



And the other branches have to keep the judicial branch in check and not allow them to create which ever laws they see fit and can justify under broadly worded passages in the constitutions by applying them in ways that are clearly outside of the intent it was created for. Sadly we don’t have much a check in that regard outside of simply doing what Jackson did.



Sorry but that is horse shit. The country is over two hundred years old and suddenly gay marriage is a fundamental part over nation’s government. I didn’t say large change had to be done gradually I said it has to be done with some level of consensus and the more the consensus the faster and more affective the change. That sort of change often takes time but that is incidental not required.



Sorry but no I don’t have to dissect a legal opinion that is pages and pages long to believe that a gay judge from San Francisco who decides that the 14th amendment makes it unconstitutional for states to ban gay marriage is acting on his personal belief and not on the law. I am sure he is a brilliant man and his findings are well documented and supported but that does not change the fact that he is using his place on the bench to bring social change. If I wan't to make an indepth argument about this ruling it would make sense for me to dig deep into his ruling but I am making a briader argument then that.