View Poll Results: Is Gay Marriage a Constitutional Right in the U.S.?

Voters
86. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    41 47.67%
  • No

    40 46.51%
  • Other/Don't know

    5 5.81%
Page 12 of 31 FirstFirst ... 2101112131422 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 310

Thread: Is Gay Marriage a Constitutional Right in the U.S.?

  1. #111
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: Is Gay Marriage a Constitutional Right in the U.S.?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    If the government offers a grant or tax credits or money or any financial aid on the basis of race, relationship type, age, etc. it is inherently discriminatory. The following grant is only available to students at "minority serving institutions", which means I could never apply for it; the reason being my race.
    No, you're misreading it. You couldn't apply for the grant because you're not a school. It's a grant schools can apply for to supplement their funding in training medical students in cardiovascular, pulmonary, hematologic, and sleep disorders. The grant can only be applied for by schools that qualify as 'minority serving institutions' (MSI). The definition of an MSI is that at least 25% of the student population is minorities.

    So, it doesn't violate equal protection for a couple reasons-

    1) It's for schools, which aren't citizens protected by the 14th
    2) Anybody of any race can attend the schools that recieve the grant, so nobody is being denied anything

    25% minority is a bar that would be met by virtually any school. They're just saying they won't give the money to a school that appears to be flagrantly discriminating in favor of white students- schools that don't serve minorities. In some ways, they need a clause like that in there to ensure that they aren't violating equal protection by giving federal funding to schools that engage in blatant discrimination. From that link above it sounds like a rule that was passed around the time of the civil rights act, presumably to prevent the federal government from funding segregated white colleges which were still very common at the time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    If the government offers a grant or tax credits or money or any financial aid on the basis of race, relationship type, age, etc. it is inherently discriminatory.
    That's not neccesarily true. For example, say they find that current financial aid programs are not equally reaching a specific category of students for some reason. They could rectify that by establishing a financial aid program targetting the population they were previously underserving.
    Last edited by teamosil; 10-19-09 at 02:33 AM.

  2. #112
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Last Seen
    12-26-10 @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,083

    Re: Is Gay Marriage a Constitutional Right in the U.S.?

    Quote Originally Posted by Metternich View Post
    Glad to see anti-intellectualism has such a strong wing in Gay Rights.

    Yes, who cares about Rule of Law, all this "Constitutional Garbage!" Let's all bow down to your feelings and what your 'gut' is telling you.
    The Constitution gets trumped for all sorts of reasons. The right wing uses all sorts of language and legal technicalities to bypass its meaning in order to serve social conservatism; the left uses it to impede upon things like the second amendment, and people's choices in daily life.

    I've done the intellectual debates so many times. I probably know more about this issue than most of the people on these boards. The fact is, if people supported gay marriage, the law would find some way to make it happen. That's what democracy is. There's nothing in the Federal Constitution or the State Constitutions which inherently say the government cannot pass new marriage laws. Most of it comes down to the legislature and people's votes... so people vote no (mostly).

    The Constitutional arguments are all garbage, because the Constitution does not govern marriage. Non-constitutional law does, and those laws can be changed on a whim... but now you have voters actually changing their state Constitutions to define marriage, which is an obscenity and a mark of evil upon what the Constitution is supposed to mean.

    There is no logical argument to deny gays the right to marry. Not one. Gay couples have families now. They deserve the same privilege as heterosexual parents to raise their children with maximum benefits. Either the states grant those privileges, or the privileges should not be in state hands whatsoever. It's unfair to treat it any other way.
    Last edited by Orion; 10-19-09 at 03:13 AM.

  3. #113
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: Is Gay Marriage a Constitutional Right in the U.S.?

    Quote Originally Posted by Orius View Post
    There's nothing in the Federal Constitution or the State Constitutions which inherently say the government cannot pass new marriage laws. [...]

    The Constitutional arguments are all garbage, because the Constitution does not govern marriage. Non-constitutional law does, and those laws can be changed on a whim...
    But if those laws conflict with the consitution, then the supreme court can strike them down. That's what they did in Loving v Virginia- they struck down all the state laws that prohibited inter-racial marriage because those laws violated the equal protection clause.

    There is a case working it's way up to the supreme court right now (Perry v Schwarzenegger) making the same argument that was made in Loving v Virginia.

    Ultimately, what the argument will likely come down to is whether sexual orientation is a level 1 protected class. If it is, then all laws prohibiting gay marriage will have to be struck down. Thus far, the supreme court has avoided deciding whether sexual orientation is a protected class like race or religion or whatnot. In Lawrence v Texas they overturned sodomy laws. The case really should have dealt with the question of whether sexual orientation was a protected class or not, but the SCOTUS basically chickened out and came up with some technical reasons to overturn sodomy laws without actually declaring whether or not sexual orientation is a protected class. The majority opinion didn't say either way, the minority opinion said that it was a protected class, but minority court opinions don't form precedent. Could be that the court is now prepared to rule on it, or it could be that they keep avoiding the issue with some legal evasions...

    So, it could either be decided in the courts or through democratic process. Could be that the states will ban it and the courts overturn those laws anyways, could be that the courts allow the states to decide. Issues like this have historically been decided about half one way, half the other. For example, the civil rights act went through congress, school desegregation came from the courts, slavery was ended by the legislature, interracial marriage bans through the courts, and so on.
    Last edited by teamosil; 10-19-09 at 03:53 AM.

  4. #114
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Is Gay Marriage a Constitutional Right in the U.S.?

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    But if those laws conflict with the consitution, then the supreme court can strike them down. That's what they did in Loving v Virginia- they struck down all the state laws that prohibited inter-racial marriage because those laws violated the equal protection clause.
    Loving said equal protection was achieved, but that the prohibition needed to stand on it's own merit. If an intelligent rational were behind interracial bans, rather than this racial purity nonsense, Loving may not have struck those laws down.

    What I'm saying is those laws were not shot down for the vauge reason of equal protection as you claim.

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    Ultimately, what the argument will likely come down to is whether sexual orientation is a level 1 protected class.
    As with Loving, heteros are prevented from marrying the same sex also, hence no discrimination against sexual orientation. Hetero can marry hetero just as white can marry white. Hetero can marry gay just as white can marry black. Gay marriage can only be likened to Loving if someone is claiming that only people of the same orientation can marry. But no one is saying that. Not even close. And before you go there, no, there is no sexual equivalent to protecting racial purity, so don't even try.

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    So, it could either be decided in the courts or through democratic process. Could be that the states will ban it and the courts overturn those laws anyways, could be that the courts allow the states to decide. Issues like this have historically been decided about half one way, half the other. For example, the civil rights act went through congress, school desegregation came from the courts, slavery was ended by the legislature, interracial marriage bans through the courts, and so on.
    Gay-marriage is not a civil rights issue. It never was.
    Last edited by Jerry; 10-19-09 at 04:26 AM.

  5. #115
    Stigmatized! End R Word! Kali's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Last Seen
    08-19-12 @ 12:29 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    13,334
    Blog Entries
    7

    Re: Is Gay Marriage a Constitutional Right in the U.S.?

    Gay-marriage is not a civil rights issue? Are you nutz?
    ~Following My Own Flow~

  6. #116
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: Is Gay Marriage a Constitutional Right in the U.S.?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Loving said equal protection was achieved, but that the prohibition needed to stand on it's own merit. [...]

    What I'm saying is those laws were not shot down for the vauge reason of equal protection as you claim.
    That's totally incorrect. The SCOTUS decision explicity declares that it violates the 14th:

    Virginia's statutory scheme to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications held to violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment [...]

    To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

    These convictions must be reversed.

    It is so ordered.
    FindLaw | Cases and Codes

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    If an intelligent rational were behind interracial bans, rather than this racial purity nonsense, Loving may not have struck those laws down.
    Perhaps what you're thinking of is that the courts do need to decide whether a particular class is protected or not. So, if there are legitimate interests of society that are served by discriminating on the basis of something, they do weigh that in when deciding whether to make it a protected class. So, theoretically, they could rule that sexual orientation is not a protected class. Maybe they could even do that because of the stuff about procreation or something. Or, they could rule that homophobia is just as ludicrouse as racism and rule that it is a protected class. If they decide that it is a protected class, the game is over and from that point forward no laws treating gays or homosexual relationships differently than they treat heterosexuals or heterosexual relationships will be legal.
    Last edited by teamosil; 10-19-09 at 05:16 AM.

  7. #117
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Seen
    06-29-10 @ 11:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,801

    Re: Is Gay Marriage a Constitutional Right in the U.S.?

    I don't think marriage is a Constitutional right at all.

  8. #118
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: Is Gay Marriage a Constitutional Right in the U.S.?

    Quote Originally Posted by Toothpicvic View Post
    I don't think marriage is a Constitutional right at all.
    No it's not. But equal protection of the law is. So that's the legal question- whether laws banning gay marriage violate equal protection.

  9. #119
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Seen
    06-29-10 @ 11:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,801

    Re: Is Gay Marriage a Constitutional Right in the U.S.?

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    No it's not. But equal protection of the law is. So that's the legal question- whether laws banning gay marriage violate equal protection.
    Personally I want marriage to be completely out of govt. I don't think marriage in the legal sense should even exist - it should just be a personal thing.

  10. #120
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: Is Gay Marriage a Constitutional Right in the U.S.?

    Quote Originally Posted by Toothpicvic View Post
    Personally I want marriage to be completely out of govt. I don't think marriage in the legal sense should even exist - it should just be a personal thing.
    Constitutionally that would work. Practically I'm not so sure. For example, if somebody is in a coma, who makes decisions for them? Or if one spouse dies with no will, who gets the estate? You could theoretically cover all those kinds of issues with individual contracts, but that seems like a more cumbersome way to do the same thing.
    Last edited by teamosil; 10-19-09 at 05:17 AM.

Page 12 of 31 FirstFirst ... 2101112131422 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •