Google "interracial marriage forbidden bible", you'll find plenty of religious justification for "racial purity". I grew up in the South in the 1940's and 50's and these beliefs were widespread, along with their religious justifications.

Yep.

A State, a collection of people, can and do have the right to determine their local rules. The only people who have to like those rules are the ones who vote for them in that state; they don't even have to be constitutional A lawyer told me that not long ago.

I really like how you keep going to the 14th amendment. Does that mean, although slaves were freed by War and the emancipation proclamation, they had no INALIENABLE RIGHTS under the Constitution until the fed gov (men) awarded them their rights?

My understanding was that the 13,14, and 15th Amendment were put in place to FORCE the Southern people to accept freed slaves fully.

Supposition: Perhaps thats why black society is as messed up as it is today. Equal except that their rights came from the government (can be restricted and even taken away) and not God.

she really is lovely, about 15 feet from the front of our house.
we have so many acorns that the squirrels throw parties
under her. . we're wild and wonderful, here in the woods!!! -- j
.

And What religion says white and blacks can't marry. Had nothing to do with any religion I am aware of...Note: not a fan of organized religions. These creatures just made that up...that's what liberal progressives do.

Absurd. Does that mean the 28th Amendment renders useless the prior 27? The First Amendment doesn't matter because of the second? Please.

A State can do whatever its people want it to provided the people of that State voted for it. This was told to me by a lawyer once. You say your for individual rights but you're championing using a club (force) to manipulate society (a group of people).

You give some of your freedom away to live in society. Unfortunately now you really haven't much choice in the matter. Do you deny this?

Hey, I never said individual rights are valid only if allowed by federal law...that mentality, the one you apparently support, is what put that woman in jail.

So you are saying that states have the right to ban interracial marriages? What about racially segregating their schools?

As to your question, there is no federal law sanctioning and permitting homosexual marriage. So what? Equality before the law and individual rights are not limited to whatever the federal government "sanctions" or "permits". Discriminatory state and local laws that confer privileges to some citizens and deny them to others are prohibited by the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This applies to any state laws, not just those that conflict with rights that the federal government "sanctions" or "permits".

Agreed. But the "compromise" was still flawed. That is what I flippantly meant when i said the founders were to blame.

The 14th Amendment does not apply only to freed slaves, it applies to every citizen of the United States. As part of the Constitution, it becomes a power delegated to the United States. Thus the 10th Amendment does not apply, and cannot be used to overturn the 14th.

Really? Were state laws banning interracial marriage 60 years ago "legitimate"? Were these laws the "only valid laws"? Was the Supreme Court wrong to overturn these laws in 1967? I would be interested in your answer.

No, thats not true. They are both law and they don't overlap.

Tenth Amendment - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

14th is from the reparation age and relates to freed slaves (as do 13 and 15).

So individual rights are valid only if "allowed" by FEDERAL LAW? If you live in a society you are subject to that society's rules, but only in a practical sense, not necessarily in a moral one. "Society" can violate your individual rights, but you're still entitled to them. The Supreme Court ruled correctly.

The 14th Amendment came later than the 10th and supersedes it. Among other purposes, it was designed to protect citizens from having their rights overturned by state and local governments.

On second thought, I might be discriminating against all mobility-challenged lifeforms, like your 120 foot tall tree. Perhaps I should be censored by the PC crowd?

okay; this one is about 120 feet tall, three feet in diameter
and an oak. . root ball about 30 feet in diameter. . can't quite
carry her in. . WAAAaaaaaaaa. -- j
.

Doesn't apply, not in the slightest.

The 10th is what matters here. Yes, I re-read 14 and it in no way applies.

Fantasy.

If you live in a society you are subject to that society's rules. Also, there was no FEDERAL LAW passed by Congress to allow (funny) gay marriage.

Any other claim is fallacious.

You cheer for lawlessness.

The president doesn't make law, the Supreme Court doesn't make law, and no law has been passed by Congress. Yes, KY State law says marriage is between a man and a woman. The federal judge had this clerk imprisoned for obeying the only valid law.

I don't have any care one way or another when it comes to homosexuals getting married where they can (not in Churches that don't want them) but this is about federal enforcement of its will (not law) on a person who is obeying State law, the only legitimate law.

Even then, its not a federal issue, its a local one.

What law has been made to sanction and permit homosexual marriage that trumps State law?

Be honest.

No, they are upholding the 14th.

Then she was clearly refusing to do her job, since she could have no "religious objection" to issuing marriage licenses to non-gay couples. If she truly intended to follow state law and the "will of God," her only viable options would have been to either (1) resign, or (2) issue licenses to heterosexual couples and not issue licenses to gay couples, and face the legal consequences.

"Social issues are best suited to the State and local governments." No they aren't. Social issues are best left to individuals rather than government at any level. When state and local governments do decide to involve themselves in social issues, it is the federal government's responsibility to ensure that these state and local governments enforce such laws in a fair and non-discriminatory manner.

They treasured their independence, their freedom , if you will. They mistakenly thought that creating independent governments for each state under the umbrella of a single federation was the best compromise. It never entered their heads, with the possible exception of Jefferson, that "less is more." They were seekers of freedom but its totality eluded their grasp. However, considering the times, they did an amazing job, and did provide for the freest country in history. Jefferson doubted that it would last beyond his lifetime. In a sense, he was right.