On Nov 9, 8:44=A0pm, Michael Ejercito wrote:
> On Nov 9, 2:49=A0pm, Emerson Wainwright
> wrote:> On Nov 9, 12:38=A0pm, Michael Ejercito wro=
te:
>
> > > On Nov 6, 8:25=A0pm, Curly Surmudgeon wrot=
e:> On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 05:52:30 +0000, Californians With Common Sense wrot=
e:
>
> > > > Proposition 8 is irrelevant. =A0No law trumps the 14th Amendment.
>
> > > =A0 =A0We all know that those fourteenth amendment authors were REALL=
Y
> > > after legal recognition of same-. "marriage", RIGHT?
>
> > They also wouldn't have wanted women to vote (or work, for that
> > matter), or for blacks to become citizens, or to be able to marry
> > whites, while they would have wanted all stores to be closed on
> > Sundays.
>
> =A0 =A0The authors of the fourteenth amendment DID want blacks to become
> citizens. That is what the fourteenth amendment DID.
>
> =A0 =A0As for women voting, the nineteenth amendment protects that right;
> the fourteenth DIDN'T.
>
> =A0 =A0If you want to properly interpret the fourteenth amendment, you
> must divine the intent of its authors.
>
> =A0Michael
Through your snippage, you clipped the part where I mentioned the
framers of the Constitution. I wasn't talking about those who
proposed and ratified the 14th Amendment. |
