Quote Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit View Post
If the constitutional right for gay marriage came into being during the 1800s (due to the 14th amendment), then that means the right to gay marriage has existed since then. So gay people should have been able to marry since that time.

But gay marriage would have been a very shocking idea and concept to the people of the 1800s.
Furthermore, assume that there are yet unrecognized rights in the constitution, similar to how the foundation for gay marriage existed since the 1800s but is only now recognized.

Mr. Kerr is asking for thoughts on what consitutional rights may exist now but are unrecognized, similar to the situation of gay marriage in the 1800s.

I think that just becuase they are unrecognized does not mean they are impossible for people, understanding what the constitution promises and where society is headed, to give an educated guess as to what rights may exist, unrecognized.
CR
This is entirely a false dilemma based on the various definitions of "right". Women had the natural right to vote (equality) before they were given the legal right to vote. That's usually how it goes, we see that people have a certain right and then we encode it in our laws.

Kerr's going for a cloaked version of the "but if we legalize gay marriage, then something-something might become legal next!" slippery slope argument.

If there is an accidental loophole in the constitution that gives a legal right where it shouldn't be given (where there is no natural right), that is unfortunate but irrelevant to the gay marriage situation (where the legal right should be given).

If I'm mistaken and he isn't interested in any gay marriage angle, but just in possible interpretations of the constitution, then this is all off topic.