• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How important do you consider the issue of gay marriage?

On a scale of one to ten, how much does it matter?


  • Total voters
    56
Your problem is that you can also have a gay man who prefers to have sex with those who are of a different race or a gay woman who prefers to have sex with those of the same race as his/her-self. Whether it is about sex/gender or race, it is still a choice for what characteristic may be a factor in why a person is attracted to and wants to marry another person.

And if the treatment cannot be justified (as it is justified with military fitness requirements) then it would still be unconstitutional. A state cannot make a law that said white women could not have a driver's license based purely on their race and/or sex/gender without said law being ruled unconstitutional.

Then ANY desired "partnership agreement" should be possible as being called a "marriage", e.g. polygamy. What "compelling state interest" is served by saying that ONE is a "sacred" or "tradional" number of spouses, yet man/woman is now "passe" due to social "evolution" or whatever makes GLBT now a right? If I really want a husband AND a wife, or two or three wives then WHY NOT? That is perfectly accetable in a state issued business partnership, that deals with the death of a partner and property distribution upon separation (of any/all partners), minor additions to child custody laws could easily handle polygamy as well. Once it is up to the nine robed umpires, and no longer a state or constituional amendment issue, we are in deep trouble, IMHO, as we the people are totally at the mercy of the SCOTUS unless and until an amendment is passed, to simply set set things back as they were. In your view 5/4 of the SCOTUS can simply change existing federal/state law after 200 years with no constitutional action at all, that is dangerous indeed.
 
Last edited:
Not at all. Race, gender and GLBT status ar THREE separate and NOT EQUAL concepts. The concept of racial equality is separate and distinct from the concept of gender equality. The mixed race "bans" were unconstitutional because a black man was treated differently (unequal) to a white man, and black woman was treated differently (unequal) to a white woman, PURELY RACIAL DISCRIMINATION. Marriage was (and largely still is) one man/one woman.

You do know that Mr Loving was white right? His wife was black. And they both spent time in jail for living together in VA as a married couple. They were treated unequally because they were not allowed to choose their partner based on the partner's race. Same sex couples are being treated differently because they are not allowed to choose their partner based on the partner's sex. It is purely sex/gender discrimination. At that time marriage was still largely between people of the same race only.

You will note that it IS constitutional to treat the genders unequally, one need look only at military duty assignments and physical fitness standards. But it is NOT constitutional when it comes to voting to treat gender or race differently; but note no GLBT changes needed at all for voting laws.

It is constitutional to treat the races unequally, the states just need a really exceptional reason to do so. It all depends on the level of scrutiny and the state's reasoning for the unequal treatment and how that unequal treatment furthers a state interest.

Levels of Scrutiny Under the Equal Protection Clause

What you wish to do is to equate a male/female pair and a male/male pair and a female/female pair, but NOTHING in our constituion bestows rights on EITHER pairing or marriage, that is ALL state contract law, as the 10th amendment CLEARLY states that it should be. Since marriage is neither an individual right nor a federal power granted by the constitution, it is left to states.

You're wrong. Male/female pairs can be equated to male/male pairs or female/female pairs when it comes to marriage because nothing in a marriage contract or any actual laws pertaining to the responsibilities or functioning aspects of the contract make a male/female pair a necessity.

And marriage is a right. Even if it were not, the people still have a right to equal protection under marriage laws as long as the states recognize legal marriages at all.

There is a way that the states could constitutionally ban same sex marriages but they won't because they know that it would also ban opposite sex couples who cannot procreate from getting married as well and possibly require more stringent divorce laws when couples do have children. It completely ignores the other purposes of marriage and would likely be a horrible move on the part of any state that did it. It likely wouldn't last long if it was pulled off to begin with either.
 
It really doesn't affect me. Explaining from the pov that it leads to even more moral decay isn't received well by some people. It's not important in the sense that it's dangerous or anything like that, but important if you're concerned about the overall morality of a nation from a Christian point of view.

The proposition that homosexuality = moral decadence or decay is a claim that has yet to be substantiated by an logical argument or evidence.
 
Last edited:
Sure there was. In fact, I know of at least one, but I believe there were more, SCOTUS cases that ruled interracial marriage bans did not violate the EPC, and the one I know of was unanimous in that decision. Just as there were several cases in the SC that upheld segregation laws.

However, that doesn't mean they were right or that the fact that it could be deemed constitutional means that it should be or actually is constitutional. The SCOTUS gets stuff wrong and times change.

I know for sure that any SCOTUS decision on this will not be a unanimous decision that denying same sex couples access to marry does not violate the 14th Amendment's EPC. We know more than we did in the past and it has become a very big deal for the Court to separate church and state and uphold individual rights over many government laws, whether state or federal, particularly when it cannot be shown that the government has a legitimate reason to have such a law in place.

That's it right there! You've just proven my point. If I gave any impression that I figured that SCOTUS would come to the conclusion I gave, I apologize. My point was that would be the logical justification that would occur in the lower courts.

I'll give you times change and as they do SCOTUS shifts with the times. But given that they are the final authority they can only get things wrong in our opinion of how things should be and should be interpreted.

Why can't we just say no law shall contain any reference to gender, race, religious choice or sexual orientation/identification? Things would be so much simpler.
 
Then ANY desired "partnership agreement" should be possible as being called a "marriage", e.g. polygamy. What "compelling state interest" is served by saying that ONE is a "sacred" or "tradional" number of spouses, yet man/woman is now "passe" due to social "evolution" or whatever makes GLBT now a right? If I really want a husband AND a wife, or two or three wives then WHY NOT? That is perfectly accetable in a state issued business partnership, that deals with the death of a partner and property distribution upon separation (of any/all partners), minor additions to child custody laws could easily handle polygamy as well. Once it is up to the nine robed umpires, and no longer a state or constituional amendment issue, we are in deep trouble, IMHO, as we the people are totally at the mercy of the SCOTUS unless and until an amendment is passed, to simply set set things back as they were. In your view 5/4 of the SCOTUS can simply change existing federal/state law after 200 years with no constitutional action at all, that is dangerous indeed.

I swear you don't understand the part about states being able to restrict things based on a legitimate state interest in doing so under the EPC. The legitimate state interest in denying more than 2 people to enter into a marriage can easily be that the laws and responsibilities connected to legal marriage are only designed for 2 people. Plus, there would be extensive legal issues that can easily be anticipated by having more than two people involved in a marriage.

I'm not even against some form of marriage for multiple spouses, particularly granting many family rights to multiple spouses, but I see the actual legal issues involved with just legalizing polygamy without addressing the problems that would come with it first.

So tell me, exactly what legitimate state interest is being reasonably furthered by banning same sex couples from getting legally married? Keep in mind always that no couple is required to have or raise children to get legally married and maintaining tradition is not a legitimate state interest either, or interracial marriage bans could have been upheld easily since most of them had been in place in those states that had them overturned since before we officially became a country.

It's not just "my view" that says that SCOTUS can change existing federal/state laws without adding new Amendments, it is part of US law and has been used quite often in the last 50 or more years, maybe even longer.
 
Words have meaning, that do not "change over time", especially to ADD/DELETE new "concepts" or "classes".

Words do have meaning, however they do change in time. However, we're not just talking about words, we're talking about constitutional law. Perhaps rather than worrying about what's clear or readable you should get a baseline understanding of how Con Law works. There's a thing called precedence that, unless rejected by a later court, essentially add's new "concepts" or "classes" to law based on interpritation of the law by Justices.

In terms of the 14th amendment, case law suggest that yes...race is LIKE gender. Specifically, that Gender is a recognized classification under the Equal Protection Clause. One that is of slightly lower importance than race, but more importance than many other classifications. Perhaps instead of bitching that peoples words are unreadable you should instead do some research to understand what those "big words" are talking about since it's integral to the conversatoin. Case Law has established precedence that Gender is viewed under medium teir scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause. This means that the government must show that the discrimination against gender serves an important state interest and that said discrimination is at least substantially related to serving that interest.

It's funny that you wish to talk about "legal precedent" while completely and utterly ignoring actual legal precedent. You say words have meaning. Thanks for that wonderful insight. Here's some insight for you. YOUR OPINION of what the law should be and how it should be applied means jack ****. Case law has established that the courts can, and have, used Gender as a class under the EPC despite your claims that those amendments prove legal precedent says it does'nt. See Ramos v. Town of Vernon, US v. Virginia (The VMI case), or even more recently and branching it out even further Glenn v. Brumby. From Ramos's decision you can even see the court specifically laying out that gender can fall under Intermediate Scrutiny under the EPC:

“Intermediate scrutiny typically is used to review laws that employ quasi-suspect classifications…such as gender…or legitimacy…. On occasion intermediate scrutiny has been applied to review a law that affects ‘an important though not constitutional right.’” Soure

You keep going back to the military to attempt to prove that gender doesn't fit. Again, that fails. It's not that the EPC doesn't apply to Gender, it's that the courts had found that denying women the ability to enter into combat roles has thus far been found to adhere to the intermediate scrutiny needed to discriminate against them. You can refer back to a 1981 court case where the SCOTUS upheld a national draft law that excluded women. In terms of the various phsyical requirements, I'm not aware off the top of my head of any cases that challenged those standards and one must remember that the Supreme Court can not simply deem things unconstitutional...they must have a case brought before them to be able to take any action.

You're correct in your assumption that Race is not EQUAL to Gender. It's not. Race is a viewed under strict scrutiny while gender is done under intermediate scrutiny. However, they are "Like" each other in that they both can and have been used as classifications under the Equal Protectoin Clause. Additionally, as was my point from the very beginning, Gender being an intermediate scrutiny classification places it at a higher constitutional burden at this point via case law then sexual orientation.

As a note, Sexual Orientation does have case law regarding it's place in the courts in terms of the Equal Protectoin Clause. It is a lowest teir, or "Rational Scrutiny", level classification at this point but is essentially the "top" end of that bottom teir having something called a "second order rational basis test" to determine the constitutionality of discrimination against such classification.

Things can "To you" appear to be whatever you wish it to be. But the reality of the situation is that when it comes to constitutional law, precedence in terms of previous rulings by the court is far more important than what random opinion ANY of us...me and you included..have that run counter to what that legal precedence demonstrates.

Race is not "like" gender (nor is GLBT orientation "like" race or gender) thus they were explictly and separately addressed, via constitutional amendment. To me that establishes a "legal precedent", that we DO amend the constitution for "conceptually different" things, not simply accept that all things "like" or "sort of similar to" are the SAME or EQUAL concept.

Treating a black man not like a white man is unconstitutional, but treating a black man not like a white woman is NOT unconstitutional IFF treating a black man not like black woman is also done (e.g. military physical fitness standards) thus marriage defined as one man/one woman is perfectly legal. Just as race and gender are NOT mutually exclusive, neither is GLBT status a substitue for either gender or race, it is in its "own class" of concepts. You can be a gay black man, or a white bisexual woman, or... (you get my drift here).[/QUOTE]
 
So tell me, exactly what legitimate state interest is being reasonably furthered by banning same sex couples from getting legally married?

Are you viewing it from the stand point of gender discrimination or sexual preference discrimination?

With one it is just important to point out a "legitimate" state interest and one only must show that the discrimination is "rationally" related to it...at least at this point given current case laws placement of the classification on the EPC scale.

With the other one must show that its an "important", not just legitimate, state interest and that the discrimination is "substantially" related to it...a far higher standard, and one that doesn't apply to homosexuals at this point.

There's a LOT of wiggle room with regards to the lower teir and proving the state constitutional in its discrimination.
 
........I believe that SSM is a grave sin, but I oppose any attempt to criminalize it because people have to right to choose self-destruction.......
Not allowing something is not the same as criminalizing it. It should not be recognized: Period. But if someone has some goofy ceremony I cetrtainly would not fine them either.

I agree with you about homosexual sex being a sin. But let us take religion out of it for a moment: Same sex attaraction is a disorder according to the American Psychological Association (APA) for most of its history, until recently.

For some folks though, this disorder is now the "non-disorder formerly known as disorder." It was a disorder in the DSM I and II published by the APA. But in the last publication, DSM IV, it was removed as a disorder. Why?

Protests by gay rights activists against the APA began in 1970 when the organization held its convention in San Francisco. The activists disrupted the conference by interrupting speakers and shouting down and ridiculing psychiatrists who viewed homosexuality as a mental disorder. In 1971, gay rights activist Frank Kameny worked with the Gay Liberation Front collective to demonstrate against the APA's convention. At the 1971 conference, Kameny grabbed the microphone and yelled, "Psychiatry is the enemy incarnate. Psychiatry has waged a relentless war of extermination against us. You may take this as a declaration of war against you." To put is bluntly, the American Psychological Association buckled and caved to protestors, and therefore have no legitimacy now.

So the APA can be, and is, wrong. The current APA thinks that they were "wrong back then," and "right now." But certainly, the opposite can be true, that is was right back then and wrong now. I think that they were right before and wrong now because they now fear liberal retaliation and politcial correctness that did not exist before.

So the question is: Should we enshrine a mental disorder into a sacred institution?

SECOND: "LEGAL PRECEDENT". How many times have we heard the Left say it would be outrageous to overturn Roe v. Wade because of its whopping 40 years of legal precident. Well, traditional marriage had 240 years of legal precedent, and thousands of years more in Civilization as a whole. So if it is extreme to overturn Roe v. Wade after 40 years then it is off-the-chart extremism to allow gay "marriage"
 
Are you viewing it from the stand point of gender discrimination or sexual preference discrimination?

With one it is just important to point out a "legitimate" state interest and one only must show that the discrimination is "rationally" related to it...at least at this point given current case laws placement of the classification on the EPC scale.

Which explains why all of this will have to be resolved by SCOTUS. FWIW, I think it is a civil rights issue which divides consenting adults into two groups; those granted special rights and privileges and those who are not.
 
Not allowing something is not the same as criminalizing it. It should not be recognized: Period. But if someone has some goofy ceremony I cetrtainly would not fine them either.

I agree with you about homosexual sex being a sin. But let us take religion out of it for a moment: Same sex attaraction is a disorder according to the American Psychological Association (APA) for most of its history, until recently.

For some folks though, this disorder is now the "non-disorder formerly known as disorder." It was a disorder in the DSM I and II published by the APA. But in the last publication, DSM IV, it was removed as a disorder. Why?

Protests by gay rights activists against the APA began in 1970 when the organization held its convention in San Francisco. The activists disrupted the conference by interrupting speakers and shouting down and ridiculing psychiatrists who viewed homosexuality as a mental disorder. In 1971, gay rights activist Frank Kameny worked with the Gay Liberation Front collective to demonstrate against the APA's convention. At the 1971 conference, Kameny grabbed the microphone and yelled, "Psychiatry is the enemy incarnate. Psychiatry has waged a relentless war of extermination against us. You may take this as a declaration of war against you." To put is bluntly, the American Psychological Association buckled and caved to protestors, and therefore have no legitimacy now.

So the APA can be, and is, wrong. The current APA thinks that they were "wrong back then," and "right now." But certainly, the opposite can be true, that is was right back then and wrong now. I think that they were right before and wrong now because they now fear liberal retaliation and politcial correctness that did not exist before.

So the question is: Should we enshrine a mental disorder into a sacred institution?

SECOND: "LEGAL PRECEDENT". How many times have we heard the Left say it would be outrageous to overturn Roe v. Wade because of its whopping 40 years of legal precident. Well, traditional marriage had 240 years of legal precedent, and thousands of years more in Civilization as a whole. So if it is extreme to overturn Roe v. Wade after 40 years then it is off-the-chart extremism to allow gay "marriage"

The simple reason that homosexuality was removed from the DSM as a psychological disorder is because it doesn't meet the criteria for being categorized as such, and in reality most psychologists these days think it was a travesty that it was ever included in the first place, because it doesn't fit the clinical definition of a disorder. In fact, the inclusion of homosexuality as a disorder was controversial right from the beginning with the first DSM was published in 1952, rather than due to gay activism in the 1970s. Please, educate yourself on the subject.

For something to be classified as a mental of psychological disorder, it has to meet certain criteria. Does the condition, in and of itself, cause distress? Does it cause impairment/disability or otherwise disallow the individual from functioning on a daily basis? Homosexuality doesn't meet these criteria. All evidence points to the fact that homosexuality was removed from the DSM because the scientific evidence warranted it, not because of political pressure.

On the other hand, you have absolutely no argument or evidence for why the APA is "wrong now" and "right then." Merely your own opinion, not supported by any fact or scientific evidence. In addition, you possess absolutely no evidence for your assertion that homosexuality was removed from the DSM due to political pressure from gay activism. IOW, your argument consists of nothing more than "I think, therefore I am right."

Not only that, but your contention that "Same sex attaraction is a disorder according to the American Psychological Association (APA) for most of its history, until recently" is demonstrably false. The first DSM was published in 1952, and homosexuality removed as a disorder in 1973. Homosexuality remained officially a disorder in the eyes of the APA for 21 years. It has been off the manual for thirty-nine.
 
Last edited:
So the question is: Should we enshrine a mental disorder into a sacred institution?

But I don't think anybody has suggested that dogmatic homophobia be treated in such a manner. Sure, it is so lacking in anything approaching rational thought that it is certainly a mental disorder, but most of the sane just wish it would go away rather than enshrining it in any way.
 
Which explains why all of this will have to be resolved by SCOTUS. FWIW, I think it is a civil rights issue which divides consenting adults into two groups; those granted special rights and privileges and those who are not.

Marriage inherently does that.

Those who chooes to marry get special rights and privledges. Those who do not, do not.

Our entire government system in terms of "special rights and privledges" is based off the notion of segmenting off people who make certian choices. The question is whether or not those divisions are constitutional. But discrimination is not inherently unconstitutional for the government to do
 
SECOND: "LEGAL PRECEDENT". How many times have we heard the Left say it would be outrageous to overturn Roe v. Wade because of its whopping 40 years of legal precident.

And how many times have we heard the Right say that precident isn't a legitimate reason to allow something unconstitutional and morally wrong to stand.
 
Marriage inherently does that.

Those who chooes to marry get special rights and privledges. Those who do not, do not.

Our entire government system in terms of "special rights and privledges" is based off the notion of segmenting off people who make certian choices. The question is whether or not those divisions are constitutional. But discrimination is not inherently unconstitutional for the government to do

I'm not sure I agree with your assessment, but perhaps if you cited some specific examples it would be easier to agree with it.
 
I'm not sure I agree with your assessment, but perhaps if you cited some specific examples it would be easier to agree with it.

Those who choose to and can pass the tests of the DMV are segmented into the populatoin that have the privledge to drive legaly on road ways...others are segmented into the population who can not. This discriminates against those who have issues passing the test, for whatever reason that may be.

Those over 18 are segmented into the population given the privledge to buy pornography and cigerettes and not have curfews...others who are under 18 are segmented into the population that can not do those things. This discriminates against those who are under 18.

As the above, those over 21 are segmented into the population given the privledge to buy alcohol...others who are under 21 are segmented into a different set of the population without those privledges.

The rules regarding combat roles in the military segments adults into two segments based on race...those who can and can't serve in combat roles.

The laws regarding the precidency segments adults into two segments based on nationality.

I can keep going. The Law discriminates against people all the time. It just basically comes down to whether or not the discrimination reaches the required levels of necessity on the part of the government, as it relates to the amount of protection the discriminated group is awarded uner the law, to be deemed constitutional or not.
 
Those who choose to and can pass the tests of the DMV are segmented into the populatoin that have the privledge to drive legaly on road ways...others are segmented into the population who can not. This discriminates against those who have issues passing the test, for whatever reason that may be.

Those over 18 are segmented into the population given the privledge to buy pornography and cigerettes and not have curfews...others who are under 18 are segmented into the population that can not do those things. This discriminates against those who are under 18.

As the above, those over 21 are segmented into the population given the privledge to buy alcohol...others who are under 21 are segmented into a different set of the population without those privledges.

The rules regarding combat roles in the military segments adults into two segments based on race...those who can and can't serve in combat roles.

The laws regarding the precidency segments adults into two segments based on nationality.

I can keep going. The Law discriminates against people all the time. It just basically comes down to whether or not the discrimination reaches the required levels of necessity on the part of the government, as it relates to the amount of protection the discriminated group is awarded uner the law, to be deemed constitutional or not.

So, are you saying we should make minors full fledged citizens?

The military isn't racially segregated, but I do support sending all qualified personnel, regardless of gender, into a combat zone.

Requirements for the Presidency are written into the Constitution, unlike marriage and sex discrimination laws which are not.
 
And how many times have we heard the Right say that precident isn't a legitimate reason to allow something unconstitutional and morally wrong to stand.

BOTH are completely CORRECT. That is why we amend the constitution, NOT simply leave it up to 5/4 of the current nine robed umpires to make these calls. The constitution is NOT intended to be "subtle" and "vague", like the legal tomes in the court houses. It gives limitted and specific powers to the federal gov't, reserves specific rights directly to the people and leaves ALL ELSE up to the states. Something either IS or IS NOT mentioned and addressed in the constitution, all of the "grey area" nonsense means that an amendment is needed to define, in plain english, just what the deal is. Roe vs, Wade is BS, since abortion OR any other optional medical procedure is NOT mentioned in the constitution, so it is not a RIGHT. Why is it not a right to gamble? Is that not covered by PRIVACY? What compelling state interest says I can't run a football pool, host a card game or bet on the next comet to cross the sky? The SCOTUS simply making stuff up is WRONG. SSM may be "unfair" but it is NOT unconstituional, unless the constitution mentions either marriage or GLBT definition as a right or federal power, as ALL ELSE is a state matter.
 
So, are you saying we should make minors full fledged citizens?

No, I'm saying that discrimination is legal for the government to do as long as it meets a certain standard. Just because this issue "divides consenting adults into two groups; those granted special rights and privileges and those who are not" doesn't necessarily mean there's anything constitutionally wrong with it.

I agree with you completely that it's likely to be something to be decided by the courts. I disagree that it has to be...it COULD be done through legislation. However, I think at this point that's unlikely and will be more costly then having the court weigh in on the constitutional implications.
 
BOTH are completely CORRECT.

Oh I agree with the notion that precedent alone doesn't mean we should leave something on the books that's unconstitutional. I was just pointing out the humor of trying to use the "lefts" argument against them when the same thing could be done right back at the person.

That is why we amend the constitution, NOT simply leave it up to 5/4 of the current nine robed umpires to make these calls.

See, you're talking as if fact. Whether you, or I for that matter, like it....many things are left up to 5/4 of the current nine robed umpires to make these calls. You can say that is why we SHOULD amend the constitution. But in terms of stating what we DO? No, fact is, we do leave it up to them rather often

The constitution is NOT intended to be "subtle" and "vague", like the legal tomes in the court houses. It gives limitted and specific powers to the federal gov't, reserves specific rights directly to the people and leaves ALL ELSE up to the states. Something either IS or IS NOT mentioned and addressed in the constitution, all of the "grey area" nonsense means that an amendment is needed to define, in plain english, just what the deal is. Roe vs, Wade is BS, since abortion OR any other optional medical procedure is NOT mentioned in the constitution, so it is not a RIGHT.

See again, all this makes plenty sense in theoritical imaginary ttwtt world where your opinion on it is law and dictates what actually happens in that reality.

Unfortunately, no mater how much we dislike it, the reality is that what you've stated above is not ENTIRELY the case. That's your opinion of what it is and how it should be, but it doesn't reflect reality. Its what you WANT reality to be. Which is all fine and good and I fully support your right to argue for it and push for it and push your representitives to push for it. However, don't piss on me and tell me its rain and expect that I'm actually going to believe its rain. I'm going to tell you flat out it's piss that you're trying to pass off as rain.

Why is it not a right to gamble? Is that not covered by PRIVACY? What compelling state interest says I can't run a football pool, host a card game or bet on the next comet to cross the sky? The SCOTUS simply making stuff up is WRONG. SSM may be "unfair" but it is NOT unconstituional, unless the constitution mentions either marriage or GLBT definition as a right or federal power, as ALL ELSE is a state matter.

All fine and good...but until you can actually do something to change what's been occuring for decades into centuries, your cries of them being "WRONG" does as much good as a guy on a street corner screaming "THE END IS NIGH".

That's part of the issue. You're talking about things that are theoritical or opinion based but putting them forward and arguing with them as if they're factual reality...that doesn't work.

SSM, in my opinion...which again, is also rather irrelevant but at least I'm acknowledging it as an opinion...based on the reality of our legal system and constitutional law as it has existed through my and your life time, I believe that SSM has a good chance of being found unconstitutional if argued under the notion of gender discrimination in a EPC 14th amendment case. If you want to talk about the nitty gritty theoritical constitutional philosophy about it...that's an entire different discussion that needs to go back amending TONS of precedences to get to what I think is the actual heart of the truth. However, if you want to talk about reality and what is constitutional based on how the law is actually interprited today? Precedence and case law matters then.
 
It took the 44th President of U.S.A. to legalise SSM. Was there a surge in homosexualty lately?
 
I think in time SSM could win a civil rights (right to equality) case against discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Various jurisdictions have enacted statutes to prevent discrimination based on a person's race, sex, religion, age, previous condition of servitude, physical limitation, national origin, and in some instances sexual orientation.

The judiciary, most notably the Supreme Court, plays a crucial role in interpreting the extent of the civil rights, as a single Supreme Court ruling can alter the recognition of a right throughout the nation. Supreme Court decisions can also affect the manner in which Congress enacts civil rights legislation, an occurrence that occurred with the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
 
Are you viewing it from the stand point of gender discrimination or sexual preference discrimination?

With one it is just important to point out a "legitimate" state interest and one only must show that the discrimination is "rationally" related to it...at least at this point given current case laws placement of the classification on the EPC scale.

With the other one must show that its an "important", not just legitimate, state interest and that the discrimination is "substantially" related to it...a far higher standard, and one that doesn't apply to homosexuals at this point.

There's a LOT of wiggle room with regards to the lower teir and proving the state constitutional in its discrimination.

I honestly do believe that it is gender discrimination. And that is the tier it should fall under. People do not have to prove neither love, nor attraction to legally be married and a requirement to do so would be horrible. So it cannot be said that sexuality is the factor determining how people are being treated unequally here.

However, giving what the ruling was in Turner v Safley, and the fact that it was a bottom tier ruling that still overturned bans on a group (inmates) from getting legally married and never once mentioned the only thing that separates all same sex couples from most opposite sex couples, the ability to procreate, it still could stand a pretty good chance even at the bottom tier.

And we can almost guarantee that if the laws read "homosexuals (bisexuals) cannot legally get married", that it would be overturned as unconstitutional at that lowest tier, likely in a unanimous (if not damn close to it) decision.
 
BOTH are completely CORRECT. That is why we amend the constitution, NOT simply leave it up to 5/4 of the current nine robed umpires to make these calls. The constitution is NOT intended to be "subtle" and "vague", like the legal tomes in the court houses. It gives limitted and specific powers to the federal gov't, reserves specific rights directly to the people and leaves ALL ELSE up to the states. Something either IS or IS NOT mentioned and addressed in the constitution, all of the "grey area" nonsense means that an amendment is needed to define, in plain english, just what the deal is. Roe vs, Wade is BS, since abortion OR any other optional medical procedure is NOT mentioned in the constitution, so it is not a RIGHT. Why is it not a right to gamble? Is that not covered by PRIVACY? What compelling state interest says I can't run a football pool, host a card game or bet on the next comet to cross the sky? The SCOTUS simply making stuff up is WRONG. SSM may be "unfair" but it is NOT unconstituional, unless the constitution mentions either marriage or GLBT definition as a right or federal power, as ALL ELSE is a state matter.

Apparently you missed the Amendment that grants rights to the individuals as well as the state. The 10th Amendment gives all other rights to the states or the people. We have the 14th Amendment that forces the state governments to abide by the US Constitution as well.

Prior to the 14th Amendment, the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states. The states are now limited in the same way the federal government is when it comes to the rights of the people. The states used to be able to establish a state religion. Not any more. The states used to be able to violate the rights of the accused that were guaranteed by the US Constitution as being not within the power of the federal government. Again, not any more.
 
Not allowing something is not the same as criminalizing it. It should not be recognized: Period. But if someone has some goofy ceremony I cetrtainly would not fine them either.

I agree with you about homosexual sex being a sin. But let us take religion out of it for a moment: Same sex attaraction is a disorder according to the American Psychological Association (APA) for most of its history, until recently.

For some folks though, this disorder is now the "non-disorder formerly known as disorder." It was a disorder in the DSM I and II published by the APA. But in the last publication, DSM IV, it was removed as a disorder. Why?

Protests by gay rights activists against the APA began in 1970 when the organization held its convention in San Francisco. The activists disrupted the conference by interrupting speakers and shouting down and ridiculing psychiatrists who viewed homosexuality as a mental disorder. In 1971, gay rights activist Frank Kameny worked with the Gay Liberation Front collective to demonstrate against the APA's convention. At the 1971 conference, Kameny grabbed the microphone and yelled, "Psychiatry is the enemy incarnate. Psychiatry has waged a relentless war of extermination against us. You may take this as a declaration of war against you." To put is bluntly, the American Psychological Association buckled and caved to protestors, and therefore have no legitimacy now.

So the APA can be, and is, wrong. The current APA thinks that they were "wrong back then," and "right now." But certainly, the opposite can be true, that is was right back then and wrong now. I think that they were right before and wrong now because they now fear liberal retaliation and politcial correctness that did not exist before.

So the question is: Should we enshrine a mental disorder into a sacred institution?

SECOND: "LEGAL PRECEDENT". How many times have we heard the Left say it would be outrageous to overturn Roe v. Wade because of its whopping 40 years of legal precident. Well, traditional marriage had 240 years of legal precedent, and thousands of years more in Civilization as a whole. So if it is extreme to overturn Roe v. Wade after 40 years then it is off-the-chart extremism to allow gay "marriage"

so much disinformation and dishonesty in one post

first educate yourself on what a mental disorder is LMAO because you obviously dont have a clue about it or its history.

second your other example makes no sense

you ask a question "How many times have we heard the Left say it would be outrageous to overturn Roe v. Wade because of its whopping 40 years of legal precedent."

well for me the answer is NONE ive never heard anybody argue that it be outrageous to overturn it simply because its years of legal precedent, doesnt mean it didnt happen just saying I never heard that.

next you try to compare that to "allowing" equal gay rights. You understand they aren't a parallel at all. thats simply broken logic. In one case something (abortion being legal) would be made illegal, no one could get one.in the case of gay marriage, straight marriage would not get "overturned" it would still be there, now gays would just have equal rights also LMAO. They arent the same at all.

not to mention your quote about "thousands of years more in Civilization" is also inaccurate. Gay relationships, marriage, partnerships etc have been around in BC times.

It may be best if you study this subject a little more because you arent up to par.
 
No, I'm saying that discrimination is legal for the government to do as long as it meets a certain standard.

Agreed and the "certain standard" is the Constitution. Please tell me how the Constitution allows State governments to allow certain people to marry and certain people to not marry.

TIA for your civil replies on this question.
 
Back
Top Bottom