Ms Tree said:
I am curious. Does your willingness to vote on 14th issues also extend to the 1st and 2nd or does it just extend to rights you disagree with? I mean if a city were to pass a law outlawing the KKK from speaking in public but a judge struck down that law would you think the judges ruling was wrong?
I'm a fairly strict Constitutionalist who grew up a couple towns over from Skokie, where the Nazi's got the right to speak in the middle of one of the largest Jewish populations in Chicago.
The law was right in that case, but only because an actual right in the Constitution was involved.
Where your argument falls apart is that there's no Constitutional right to marry.
We've been down that road a dozen times: marriage was never the government's to define anymore than they can define who gets the title of Reverend, Rabbi, or Bishop. It's a religious covenant that's been granted recognition by the states, and particular rights and privileges associated to it. My position has long been that I'd prefer those rights and privileges give equal recognition of marriage and civil unions.
If a church decides to allow gay marriages, so be it. It's their domain to define, not the State's.
Back to the topic, I could care less if Michael Sam made the team or not.
What strikes me as ironic is that you're rolling out the equal protection clause, yet it's pretty clear that Sam is getting extra protection.
What other last round draft pick has had this much attention garnered on them?
Some day he'll take a hit in a game which lays him on the ground, and some asshat will claim it was because he's gay.
He's a mediocre player, and when the time comes to put him on waivers, more asshats will claim it's because he's gay, not because there's no room for mediocrity in the NFL.
