Because Iím gay/lesbian
Because itís an equal rights issue
Because gays/lesbians love each other too
Because I despise bigots/haters
Because I donít want to be labeled a bigot
Iím opposed to gay marriage
I donít care, either way
The act of sodomy laws and banning homosexual sex is unconstitutional. However, I do not believe that Constitutionally homosexuals as a group are protected to the same level as race, religion, and gender which are specific in the Constitution. I don't believe that issuing equal rights on the basis of sexuality is clearly outlined in the Constitution. If we want to extend equal rights on the basis of sexuality I believe that an amendment is needed. People can do as they please when it comes to sodomy/homosexuality with their own bodies, but because someone is homosexual does not grant them equal rights as is the fact that they are a member of a race or religion.And you're incorrect based on legal precedence as evidenced by the concurring opinion in Lawrence v. Texas or the ruling in Romer v. Evans. You can state that they SHOULDN'T be, but that's a different argument.
Also, statements fail to address the other point of my post which was suggesting that the issue could be completely seperated from the notion of "homosexuals" at all and be looked at by gender.
It's not a violation of ECP to define one man one woman relationships as marriage unless of course the SCOTUS rules otherwise.Requiring that the States make their laws in accordance with the Constitutional requirements of Equal Protection is no more tyrannical than saying states must make their laws in accordance with the Constitutional requirement of free speech.
I do believe that the definition is Constitutional in nature if a state defines marriage as between a man and woman and within a states right to do so.I've never stated that opposition to those facts. They do have tha authority....but that definition MUST be constitutional in nature.
A landmark case in an appeals court in MA stated that DOMA was unconstitutional because it infringes upon a state's right to define marriage. Likewise, it also upholds a state's right to do so, this is a quote directly from the ruling.I'll be honest in stating I don't know a great deal about DOMA so can't speak to it in the specific sense.The ruling was largely made because DOMA violates MA's right to define marriage and include same sex relationships. It is unconstitutional on the grounds of states rights, not that it's unconstitutional to define marriage as between a man and woman. Here is a link to the pdf ruling: http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/cas...uit-ruling.pdfTo conclude, many Americans believe that marriage is the
union of a man and a woman, and most Americans live in states where
that is the law today. One virtue of federalism is that it permits
this diversity of governance based on local choice, but this applies
as well to the states that have chosen to legalize same-sex
My argument is that and always has been that defining one man one woman marriage is not a violation of the Constitution or the EPC. It does not apply to homosexuals because I don't believe under the Constitution that it clearly states that sexuality is protected to the level that a state cannot define marriages that exclude certain sexual relationships.Your argument makes no logical sense then. The Constitution no more clearly states that Race is protected then it states Sexual Orientation or Gender is protected. You are simply deeming that you'll adhere to judicial precedence in one case but ignore it in another. Which if that's the way you want to go...fine. But don't sit here and try to imply to me that your argument is based off the notion that Race is clearly a constitutionally protected class but sexual orientation isn't when they both are protected for the same reason...judicial precedence.
So if I'm understanding you now....your argument is that Marriage is a constitutional civil right, and that there is a Constitutional requirement for Equal Protection of the Law, but that equal protection applies to Race but doesn't apply to homosexuals because........?
There is legal sexual inequality in this country. Under the law men are forced to sign up with selective service, women are not. There are areas that men and woman cannot enter (restrooms are an example) and currently combat roles and military roles are not equal when it comes to men ad women in the military. I don't think it's outside the law to say that only females can be wives/brides or that only males can be husbands/grooms or to say that marriage is only between a man and woman. I would agree that it is a violation of the Constitution if the Equal Rights Amendment was ratified, but it failed to be ratified.It violates states rights no more than the Federal Government telling them what is or is not a marriage in the case of race since it's based on the exact same constitutional principle.
Also, you've still not addressed the notion of Gender Inequality...which is what I stated I actually argue based off of, not sexual orientation discrimination. Under the law the man is able to do something a woman can not and vise versa. Stating "Well people voted that they want it that was" is not a legally viable "important state interest".
Last edited by digsbe; 12-28-12 at 12:15 PM.
Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
Last edited by winston53660; 12-28-12 at 11:56 AM.
Nice try and spectacular fail on your part.
Bigots aren't necessarily racists.You are the one who can't seem to make that distinction.
yes society is "effected" in ways but thats just life, equal rights does that. When blacks and women were granted equal rights society was effected.
as far as what people believe or are taught thats up to them, IE people still feel and teach women and minorities are lesser
Many things "effect" society in some way
nobody will be forced to "accept" anything though in personal terms
They're unconstiuttional BECAUSE homosexuality is protected under teh EPC.The act of sodomy laws and banning homosexual sex is unconstitutional.
This is correct, they are protected at a lower level than those things. That doesn't mean they're not protected, it just means that the state has a lower burden to justify their discrimination....but they still need to meet that burden and "Because people want it" doesn't meet it.However, I do not believe that Constitutionally homosexuals as a group are protected to the same level as race, religion, and gender which are specific in the Constitution.
It's as "clearly outlined" as any of the other things you listed. Why is an amendment needed to do it for sexuality but not for Race or Gender?I don't believe that issuing equal rights on the basis of sexuality is clearly outlined in the Constitution.
And I'm arguing that they should rule otherwise because there has been no demonstrated IMPORTANT state interest that is substantially served by denying them based on gender. Can you offer one?It's not a violation of ECP to define one man one woman relationships as marriage unless of course the SCOTUS rules otherwise.
And I can see where they come to that conclussion, in part because that was the argument and directoin put forth to the court and because it was not challenging based on the notion that there was an EPC violation.The ruling was largely made because DOMA violates MA's right to define marriage and include same sex relationships. It is unconstitutional on the grounds of states rights, not that it's unconstitutional to define marriage as between a man and woman. Here is a link to the pdf ruling: http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/cas...uit-ruling.pdf
And this continues to be my confusion and my assertion that your argument is illogical because the constitution doesn't "Clearly state" that race and gender can't be discriminated against either and yet you ROUTINELY point to those as being legitimate. Those have been defined in the same manner sexual orientation has bee ndefined as applying to the EPC....through judicial preccedence.My argument is that and always has been that defining one man one woman marriage is not a violation of the Constitution or the EPC. It does not apply to homosexuals because I don't believe under the Constitution that it clearly states that sexuality is protected to the level that a state cannot define marriages that exclude certain sexual relationships.
Correect. That legal sexual inequality in this country meets the required standard under the EPC. I invite you again....provide an important State Interest (Let me pull out a common one, "raising a family", that is an example of a state interest. "People wanting it" is not a state interest) that you believe is substantially served by discriminating against gender in marriage.There is legal sexual inequality in this country.
That's fine. Accept the fact then that you're picking and choosing which pieces of judicial precedence you wish to accept and making up things to justify it to yourself such as stating what the constitution "Clearly" states.As it is I again do not believe that the Constitution as written is violated by states that define one man one woman marriages. The SCOTUS may disagree and I'll accept that I was wrong, but in my opinion I think it would require a Constitutional amendment to make it so.
"I am appalled that somebody who is the nominee...would take that kind of position"
"A court took away a presidency"
"...the brother of a man running for president was the governor of the state..."
It's horrifying because Trump is blunt instead of making overt implications.
placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his
arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he
separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”
(Source: Virginia trial judge upholding conviction of Mildred and Richard
Loving for interracial marriage, quoted in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 3
productive of deplorable results. *The purity of the public morals, the moral*
and physical development of both races, and the highest advancement of*
civilization . . . all require that [the races] should be kept distinctly separate,*
and that connections and alliances so unnatural should be prohibited by*
positive law and subject to no evasion.”
* *(Source: Dissenting California Supreme Court Justice objecting to that*
Court's decision striking * * * * * down a state law ban on interracial marriage in*
Perez_v. Lippold, 198 P.2d 17, 41 (1948), (Shenk, J. dissenting))
country since before our national independence and in this state since our first
legislative session. They have never been declared unconstitutional by
any court in the land although frequently they have been under attack. It is
difficult to see why such laws, valid when enacted and constitutionally
enforceable in this state for nearly one hundred years and elsewhere for a
much longer period of time, are now unconstitutional under the same
(Source: Perez v. Lippold, 198 P.2d at 35 (Shenk, J. dissenting))
(Source: Advocates in favor of California's ban on interracial marriage,
quoted in Perez v. Lippold, 198 P.2d at 25)
and higher incidence of certain diseases among certain races, such as
sickle-cell anemia among African Americans."
(Source: Perez v. Lippold, 198 P.2d at 23-24 and n.5 (summarizing the
State's argument in favor of ban on interracial marriage))
Like I said in post #255,very eerily similar.