Reply With QuoteI think most arguments originate from this question. Whether or not youre born homo******nor
not. Then it moves onto if you think its moral
or not. That pretty much sums up the marriage argument
Just a question: what was the basis for pretty much every Civil Rights law placed on the books in the 1960s? A hint: it starts with "14th" and ends with "Amendment."Originally Posted by liberal cl
Part of the 14th Amendment states that all US citizens are guaranteed equal protection under the law, and further states that they are entitled to all of the rights, privileges, and immunities. It makes no qualification of race, gender, ****** orientation, marital status, education level, d*ck size, or any other criterion you may dream up.
Question: if certain individuals (US Citizens) were denied driver's licenses on the basis of their gender, would this be a 14th Amendment issue?
Question: if certain individuals (US Citizens) were denied admission to a public university or one that draws federal funding based upon their race, would this be a 14th Amendment issue?
I feel that if I continue, it would just be redundant. I'll leave you with this: if an individual who has not breached the social contract we have with each other -- meaning he or she has not committed a crime that would remove certain or all of the rights, privileges, and immunities that citizens are entitled to -- there is no Constitutionally-justifiable reason to deny the aforementioned to that individual. Full stop. End of story. That's the law as it's currently written. It just took us a while to figure that little tidbit out, and even then we don't fully apply it.
Marriage, like most other state functions involving interaction with the citizenry -- driver's licenses, library cards, access to universities, state-run healthcare programs, etc. -- a privilege. An inherently-discriminatory policy in the application of such state functions is going to be met with scrutiny by the courts. That's how the game is played. Your own biases seem to be telling you that this case is somehow different than the dozens of other scenarios this country has dealt with. Take the word "gay" out of it and sub some other minority group in. You seriously think that'll stand up in court?
I think most arguments originate from this question. Whether or not youre born homo******nor
not. Then it moves onto if you think its moral
or not. That pretty much sums up the marriage argument
Really?
I don't give a crap if it is innate, socialized, or decided. If you want to **** your wife in the arse, and she's cool with it - why do I care? It isn't my asshole. If you want to **** a dude in the arse, and he's cool with it, why do I care?
Some people just give too much crap about what other people are doing - and not spend enough attention on themselves. I won't be surprised if Rick Santorum gets busted blowing a male minor hooker and then blame it on stress and alcoholism and run off to some "rehab" facility.
Not where I come from. And neither in Germany since 2009.
Everyone is happy. The church, same s3x couples, and non religious folk alike.
Really now America, it's not that hard.
Heh you're Sucksembourg
Even the Voting Rights Act?
Part of the 14th Amendment states that all US citizens are guaranteed equal protection under the law, and further states that they are entitled to all of the rights, privileges, and immunities. It makes no qualification of race, gender, ****** orientation, marital status, education level, d*ck size, or any other criterion you may dream up.
Question: if certain individuals (US Citizens) were denied driver's licenses on the basis of their gender, would this be a 14th Amendment issue?
Question: if certain individuals (US Citizens) were denied admission to a public university or one that draws federal funding based upon their race, would this be a 14th Amendment issue?But that's ultimately for the SCOTUS to decide. From a propaganda standpoint, not a legalistic one, what I'm saying is gay rights activists attempt to piggyback successful Civil Rights movements while glossing over non-successful ones. That's it.
Black Civil Rights leaders take exception to this.
You're that annoying kid with no friends in class aint ya? U mad cuz u sad?
Spamming comments from youtube or are these all you?
I think the point is that there is a religious connotation to "marriage" and that so long as that word applies to same-*** marriage the religious folks won't go for it. Which begs the question why govt can license/regulate marriage in the first place but that's another debate altogether. I say it will end up this way because ultimately no one can make a church "marry" someone and most won't marry same-*** couples. By the same token, when a judge "marries" folks why does the church care?
Seems to me with that kind of constituency problem at play, the best way to handle it is for all states to grant licenses to couples who want to (through whatever means they want - a judge or a church) be joined and recognized by the state as a unit. Then they can marry in their church or be joined however they want. But under the "law" the union would be the same whatever name you apply to it. If you want to call it same *** marriage so be it but to the law it will be the same and will give the participants the same access to "rights" that every man/woman union would have.
It really has to come down like that at some point. The questions of why states are regulating a religious service and why the "rights" that go along with man/woman union recognized in a church (or not sometimes) aren't available to same *** couples can't really be answered any other way.
hank
There are so many issues to equal rights, first of which is whether homo******s are a protected class, right? If yes they get a standard the state can't meet. if not, then it is a tougher question but one that I think ultimately homo******s as a class can meet.
But I don't see the connection to civil rights. Explain that. I'm genuinely curious as to what you are saying. Equals rights has been used by women and the disabled as well as in other contexts. Its not specific to the context you mention. Its applicable in many other contexts as well. So long as the class is disadvantaged in some way, equal protection analysis (by one of the three standards currently recognized) can apply.
hank
Are you always this obtuse?
Yes, "putting in a federal law that knocks out laws designed to keep blacks from voting because, despite the fact that we passed the Civil War Amendments, people still decided it'd be a good idea to deny them their right to do so a hundred years later" would fall under equal protection/rights, privileges, and immunities. It's unfortunate that it took a federal law to make that guarantee clear. See also: the 14th Amendment.
Somehow I don't see the parallels between the gay rights movement and the (relatively small) "let Mormons keep practicing bigamy until God decides they don't have to anymore because he wants Utah to be a state" movement. Mainly due to the entirely different circumstances, motivations, arguments for, and end games that the two movements are working under. The women's suffrage movement and the civil rights movement, however, demanded the same basic thing that the current-day gay rights movement demands: we want the same rights/abilities as everybody else. That's why the parallel is drawn. It's also valid.But that's ultimately for the SCOTUS to decide. From a propaganda standpoint, not a legalistic one, what I'm saying is gay rights activists attempt to piggyback successful Civil Rights movements while glossing over non-successful ones. That's it.
Black Civil Rights leaders take exception to this.
As for your "Black Civil Rights leaders take exception to this" comment, what was your source? This?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/920416/posts
Corretta King went on record supporting gay rights, by the way. Something tells me that a woman as dignified as her isn't simply courting for votes/press coverage, unlike Jesse Jackson. Your statement probably should have read "Some Black Civil Rights leaders take exception to this."
I generally agree but remember this. How gays are "classified" is critical to the analysis. I've said (and I didn't make it up I borrowed it) that how the class is characterized makes all the difference because it determines which standard applies. If the class isn't "protected" the law will be judged on a standard that's much much easier to meet than a protected class. So far, SCOTUS has not really seemed interested in protecting gays with the highest standard. If Lawrence v. Texas (I know its not an EP case) is any indication, Kennedy would be willing to "protect" gays with the higher standard. If SCOTUS does, then all states will have to recognize some type of gay union. If not I used to say that gay union would have a tough road. But I think that's changing. This opinion moves us farther down the road of gays not being a protected class and still finding no rational basis for the law. That's unprecedented and in my view a big indicator that things may be changing. But only time will tell.
Hard to say how it will play out but I'd say the tide has turned. Gays will get EP even if they aren't a protected class. Wasn't sure that would happen before.
hank
Fair points.
Having said that, if they're not a protected class, they're well on their way. IIRC, recipients of federal funds can't discriminate on the basis of, among other things, ****** orientation. "Gay bashing" is now specifically targeted as a hate crime. Etc. etc. etc.
If they get protected class its over. I like the direction its headed though because for the first time I think they still might get the "right" even if they aren't found to be protected. SCOTUS has had no interest so far in finding them to be protected. Scalia's opinion on that issue is funny to read. He actually makes the point that gays are "advantaged" instead of "disadvantaged." Classic Scalia.
Good points. We've come a long way even since the victory that was Lawrence v. Texas.
You know a lot about this: lawyer/law student or just interested?
And not to say "I told you so" but go back and read the epic battle 2 sheds and I had on this back in 2003-2004. EPIC.
hank
Hahaha I remember that one.
Like when Geezah and Hot Lips would go at it over specific gun rights cases...
Those were equally epic.
hank
Posting Permissions
