Does the 14th Amendment apply to women and LGBT individuals? Should it?

  • Get FREE 5 Gifts with Orders $59+

Does the 14th Amendment apply to women and LGBT individuals? Should it?

LicentiouslyYours LicentiouslyYours
Conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who substantially bases his interpretation of the Constitution on what we know of our forefathers’ wishes, recently stepped in it with quite a few equality-minded folk. California Lawyer published an interview in which Justice Scalia says the Constitution—and specifically the 14th Amendment—doesn't cover women, or sexual preference because ... nobody in those days would even consider the possibility.

Ok, now interpreting things legally doesn't always go hand-in-hand with what appears to many to be common sense.

If the Constitution had been written last week, particularly the 14th Amendment which provides equal protection, it surely would have applied to all Americans, regardless of sex, gender preference or choice of coffee house.

But it wasn't written last week, and Scalia says we should interpret it exactly as the writers intended.

Do you agree or disagree?

Do we need to change the Constitution to specifically state that ALL Americans are protected, not just the straight males?

Can we interpret the Constitution to include all groups, since it doesn't specifically exclude them in spite of knowing that those who wrote it did not have anybody in mind, other than straight men, when they wrote it?
01/06/2011
  • Buy 3 Items for $70
  • Buy 3 Items for $50
  • Buy 3 Items for $30
  • Save 20% on Luxury Toys
  • Add Some Buzz To Your Favourite Toy & Save 60% On Kit
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
All promotions
Yoda Yoda
I'm not an American, so please forgive me if I'm overstepping.

In Canada we've had 3 constitutions since Confederation (the formation of Canada as a self-governing state in 1867). Each new document has built upon and improved the last. Our Charter of Rights and Freedoms is under continual review through the courts, especially our supreme court which possesses, to the dismay of some, the ability to strike down and define legislation and thereby participate in the political process.

My point is this: The law must adapt to effectively and sustainably govern. I say this within reason, of course, any major change should always be approached carefully and according to due process. I don't think this process should be quick or easy, but I do think that a progressive society should be reflected by a progressive system of law. After all, the law exists not for the privilege of those who rule, but for the benefit of the ruled.
01/07/2011
LicentiouslyYours LicentiouslyYours
Quote:
Originally posted by Yoda
I'm not an American, so please forgive me if I'm overstepping.

In Canada we've had 3 constitutions since Confederation (the formation of Canada as a self-governing state in 1867). Each new document has built upon and improved the ...
Well said
01/07/2011
ToyGeek ToyGeek
*angry noises*
01/07/2011
UnknownGirl UnknownGirl
Scalia is a cunt.

Our forefathers put very specific wording into the Constitution so as to make it flexible for future generations. They had the foresight to know that times and people would change and that the Constitution would need to evolve along with the times.

A freshman history major would know this. It amazes me that a Supreme Court Justice does not. Actually, I think Scalia makes provocative comments like that from time to time just so that people remember who he is. Otherwise nobody would really give two shits about him.
01/07/2011
Vaccinium Vaccinium
The 14th should apply to everyone, equally. Scalia interprets the Constitution narrowly to fit his beliefs, but has no problem interpreting it broadly when that also fits his beliefs.
01/08/2011
LicentiouslyYours LicentiouslyYours
Quote:
Originally posted by UnknownGirl
Scalia is a cunt.

Our forefathers put very specific wording into the Constitution so as to make it flexible for future generations. They had the foresight to know that times and people would change and that the Constitution would need to ...
Ha... "I think Scalia makes provocative comments like that from time to time just so that people remember who he is. Otherwise nobody would really give two shits about him. "

I think you may be onto something!
01/10/2011
Total posts: 7
Unique posters: 5