Quote:
Originally Posted by KSig RC
Yeah, and to go even further, there's a pretty sound argument that, because sexual orientation isn't covered by the US Constitution or Federal law, the 10th Amendment guarantees the rights of the states to handle the issue as the people see fit (obviously this has common-sense limits, but not really with marriage).
This is why we hear a lot of bluster about Congress addressing sexual orientation issues, but they never seem to actually get around to the topic in any substantive fashion.
|
And, I guess, what I was thinking was, the Constitution didn't always address race in that way but it does now. It could eventually address sexual orientation also.
I interpreted one of Kevin's comments as "if the majority of the people want it, that makes it Constitutional" although I don't think that's what he meant at all.