• 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
maquiscat said:
OK first I'm going to reword the bolded part to see if I understand you correctly because I saw at least two different way that could have been taken. Are you saying, "The lower courts have ruled that denying same sex marriage violates the 14th admendment" or are you saying that "The violation of the 14th admendment comes from the lower courts ruling in favor of denying same sex marriages"?
Click to expand...

The Prop 8 case was ruled on as a violation of the 14th Amendment and it was upheld by the Appeals Court. At least one of the DOMA challenges ruled it unconstitutional because of violating the 14th. Many of those states that have same sex marriage legal is because the courts ruled that banning it violated equal protection.

maquiscat said:
Not I am admittedly not up on all the various lower court rulings, but to the best of my recollection, there have been courts that have upheld bans and ones that have struck them down. Now maybe all the ones that have cited the 14th admendment have been ones to strike the bans down, I don't know. All I am saying is that one interpertation can be, as I have heard from anti-SSM proponents, that when marriage is defined legally as the union between a man and a woman, then that definition can be applied equally to all people. That is a homosexual man is just as equally able to get married to a woman as a straight man is. And I know the argument that a woman of any type is then not able to be married to a woman. But that doesn't fit the legal definition.
Click to expand...

All those court rulings that said same sex marriage bans did not violate the EPC went off an assumption that man/woman marriage was traditional and what has been the accepted form of marriage. Which is an appeal to tradition that no court should be using, particularly when it comes to marriage. If it was right, then we should not have had a ruling making interracial marriage legal since it was not traditionally legal in those places with laws against it. And same sex partners can now legally marry in not only some of our own states and other countries around the world, but there is also evidence that they were allowed to marry in other places in history.

The entire point is that the legal definition of marriage when it is limited to only people of opposite sexes is what violates the 14th Amendment. Just as the legal definition limiting marriage to only couples of the same race violated the 14th Amendment.
 
But how long was the 14th amendment in effect prior to interracial marriage being deemed in violation of it? My only point here is that interpretation will very through the ages, and it looks like there were many years between the adoption of the amendment and the court ruling that allowed interracial marriages. So unless I am mistaken, and do please point out the pertinent dates, there was a period where the courts held that the marriage laws were equally applied because they saw the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman of the same race.
 
maquiscat said:
But how long was the 14th amendment in effect prior to interracial marriage being deemed in violation of it? My only point here is that interpretation will very through the ages, and it looks like there were many years between the adoption of the amendment and the court ruling that allowed interracial marriages. So unless I am mistaken, and do please point out the pertinent dates, there was a period where the courts held that the marriage laws were equally applied because they saw the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman of the same race.
Click to expand...

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.
 
maquiscat said:
But how long was the 14th amendment in effect prior to interracial marriage being deemed in violation of it? My only point here is that interpretation will very through the ages, and it looks like there were many years between the adoption of the amendment and the court ruling that allowed interracial marriages. So unless I am mistaken, and do please point out the pertinent dates, there was a period where the courts held that the marriage laws were equally applied because they saw the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman of the same race.
Click to expand...

You raise a very valid point, as to the time delay between a "wrong" and someone with the time, money and balls to get it through the quagmire of our legal system, especially if a constitutional issue is involved. As to the applicability of the 14th amendment ALONE allowing SSM as a new "right", I would say no. I base this on no dislike for SSM, only that race and gender are fixed, easily defined things, whereas "sexual preference" is well, a "concept", that is not related directly to either race or gender.

Consider polygamy; how does that differ from SSM, since both require changes to "traditional marriage; one man/one woman", one seeks to alter only the "man/woman" part and the other the number of partners covered by the marriage contract (so it would more resemble a typical business partneship contract).

I think that a change so basic, as allowing a "concept" to be elevated to getting constitutional protection, requires a separate constitutional amendment, just like the women's right to vote, the racial minority right to vote and the voting age "standard" did, as they ALL followed the 14th amendment (indicating that those "rights" exceeded what was considered meant by "equal protection" under the 14th amendment).

As you can see, I hope, "sexual preference" (SSM) is not much different, conceptually, than "multiple partner preference" (polygamy), they are both choices (desires?) requiring a change from traditional marriage laws, but deeply rooted in personal preference (perhaps even as a "religion" to some) yet neither is allowed as a right protected by the constitution, yet.
 
Last edited:
roguenuke said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think that a change so basic, as allowing a "concept" to be elevated to getting constitutional protection, requires a separate constitutional amendment, just like the women's right to vote, the racial minority right to vote and the voting age "standard" did, as they ALL followed the 14th amendment (indicating that those "rights" exceeded what was considered meant by "equal protection" under the 14th amendment).
 
Last edited:
ttwtt78640 said:
You raise a very valid point, as to the time delay between a "wrong" and someone with the time, money and balls to get it through the quagmire of our legal system, especially if a constitutional issue is involved. As to the applicability of the 14th amendment ALONE allowing SSM as a new "right", I would say no. I base this on no dislike for SSM, only that race and gender are fixed, easily defined things, whereas "sexual preference" is well, a "concept", that is not related directly to either race or gender.

Consider polygamy; how does that differ from SSM, since both require changes to "traditional marriage; one man/one woman", one seeks to alter only the "man/woman" part and the other the number of partners covered by the marriage contract (so it would more resemble a typical business partneship contract).

I think that a change so basic, as allowing a "concept" to be elevated to getting constitutional protection, requires a separate constitutional amendment, just like the women's right to vote, the racial minority right to vote and the voting age "standard" did, as they ALL followed the 14th amendment (indicating that those "rights" exceeded what was considered meant by "equal protection" under the 14th amendment).

As you can see, I hope, "sexual preference" (SSM) is not much different, conceptually, than "multiple partner preference" (polygamy), they are both choices (desires?) requiring a change from traditional marriage laws, but deeply rooted in personal preference (perhaps even as a "religion" to some) yet neither is allowed as a right protected by the constitution, yet.
Click to expand...

You are still trying to equate choice of marriage partner based on race with race. That is simply not the same thing. Unless you equate choice of marriage partner based on sex with sex. That is the issue.

Having the choice of who a person is allowed to marry who would otherwise be allowed to marry someone in a similar position if not for their race or their sex. Legal marriage is a contract.

The government recognizes the contract for many reasons. One is raising children together. Another is stable relationships are better for society. And yet another is just simply a way to better handle issues when people decide to split up. All of these can apply to one or another same sex couple. And all three do not apply to every opposite sex couple.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
You raise a very valid point, as to the time delay between a "wrong" and someone with the time, money and balls to get it through the quagmire of our legal system, especially if a constitutional issue is involved. As to the applicability of the 14th amendment ALONE allowing SSM as a new "right", I would say no. I base this on no dislike for SSM, only that race and gender are fixed, easily defined things, whereas "sexual preference" is well, a "concept", that is not related directly to either race or gender.

Consider polygamy; how does that differ from SSM, since both require changes to "traditional marriage; one man/one woman", one seeks to alter only the "man/woman" part and the other the number of partners covered by the marriage contract (so it would more resemble a typical business partneship contract).

I think that a change so basic, as allowing a "concept" to be elevated to getting constitutional protection, requires a separate constitutional amendment, just like the women's right to vote, the racial minority right to vote and the voting age "standard" did, as they ALL followed the 14th amendment (indicating that those "rights" exceeded what was considered meant by "equal protection" under the 14th amendment).

As you can see, I hope, "sexual preference" (SSM) is not much different, conceptually, than "multiple partner preference" (polygamy), they are both choices (desires?) requiring a change from traditional marriage laws, but deeply rooted in personal preference (perhaps even as a "religion" to some) yet neither is allowed as a right protected by the constitution, yet.
Click to expand...

Personally this is why I don't see Same Sex Marriage as unconstitutional based on the notion of "sexual orientation" but rather based on gender discrimination. Such a notion functoins off an established standard of gender being a middle tier scrutiny category under the EPC brought about by the 14th amendment as opposed to a case with sexual orientation where it would likely require that classification being moved farther up the heirarchy of teirs by the potential court rather than treating it in the vain of the teir its always been.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
I think that a change so basic, as allowing a "concept" to be elevated to getting constitutional protection, requires a separate constitutional amendment, just like the women's right to vote, the racial minority right to vote and the voting age "standard" did, as they ALL followed the 14th amendment (indicating that those "rights" exceeded what was considered meant by "equal protection" under the 14th amendment).
Click to expand...

Sexuality is already covered under the 14th Amendment and the equal protection clause. It does not need another Amendment.

Stop living in the past. We should not have Amendments for every major change unless it is a direct contradiction to what the Constitution says. Nothing in the Constitution prevents same sex couples to having access to marriage. But the equal protection clause does cover people who are homosexual or of a certain sex when it comes to the law applying equally to them.

And no, saying that they have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex is not equal protection, any more than saying people had the right to marry someone of the same race was equal protection under the law.
 
Zyphlin said:
Personally this is why I don't see Same Sex Marriage as unconstitutional based on the notion of "sexual orientation" but rather based on gender discrimination. Such a notion functoins off an established standard of gender being a middle tier scrutiny category under the EPC brought about by the 14th amendment as opposed to a case with sexual orientation where it would likely require that classification being moved farther up the heirarchy of teirs by the potential court rather than treating it in the vain of the teir its always been.
Click to expand...

Lots of blather there Z, but very incoherent. I NEVER said or implied that SSM was unconstitutional. Some states have allowed SSM (by changing their state marriage law) yet most do not allow SSM (per existing state marriage law), which is ALL constitutional. Perhaps, instead of using "impressive" phrasing and big words, you could concentrate on simply making some sense.
 
Last edited:
roguenuke said:
Sexuality is already covered under the 14th Amendment and the equal protection clause. It does not need another Amendment.

Stop living in the past. We should not have Amendments for every major change unless it is a direct contradiction to what the Constitution says. Nothing in the Constitution prevents same sex couples to having access to marriage. But the equal protection clause does cover people who are homosexual or of a certain sex when it comes to the law applying equally to them.

And no, saying that they have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex is not equal protection, any more than saying people had the right to marry someone of the same race was equal protection under the law.
Click to expand...

Big assumptions but not legal facts. Explain what in the 15th (banning racial voting restrictions) or 19th (banning gender voting restrictions) amendments WAS NOT covered by the 14th amendment WHEN USING YOUR "interpretation" of the equal protection clause.
 
Last edited:
ttwtt78640 said:
Big assumptions but not legal facts. Explain what in the 15th (banning racial voting restrictions) or 19th (banning gender voting restrictions) amendments WAS NOT covered by the 14th amendment WHEN USING YOUR "interpretation" of the equal protection clause.
Click to expand...

Maybe we didn't need it but people believed we did so they ensured that it was quite clear that both black men and then women were viewed as equal to men and not property or lesser citizens. Just because something is done, doesn't mean it was necessary.
 
roguenuke said:
You are still trying to equate choice of marriage partner based on race with race. That is simply not the same thing. Unless you equate choice of marriage partner based on sex with sex. That is the issue.

Having the choice of who a person is allowed to marry who would otherwise be allowed to marry someone in a similar position if not for their race or their sex. Legal marriage is a contract.

The government recognizes the contract for many reasons. One is raising children together. Another is stable relationships are better for society. And yet another is just simply a way to better handle issues when people decide to split up. All of these can apply to one or another same sex couple. And all three do not apply to every opposite sex couple.
Click to expand...

Please repost in plain english, concentrate on the "equating race with race, and sex with sex" which is totally baffling to me. "Gender preference" is NOT the same as "gender (sex?)" or "race", as both were granted separate and EXPLICIT protection (by constitutional amendment).

"Gender preference" or "orientation" or any other GLBT terminology of the day, is NOT mentioned in the constitution (or ANY amendment) as a federal power or as an individual right, therefore, per the 10th amendment, it is "up to the several states" to decide the issue.

ALL states have passed their own marriage law(s). Some states are in favor of SSM, and have changed their marriage laws to include/allow SSM, but many are not, leaving their marriage laws unchanged, but ALL are still constitutional, as NO mention of either marriage or GLBT rights is made in the constitution.
 
Last edited:
ttwtt78640 said:
Please repost in plain english, concentrate on the "equating race with race, and sex with sex" which is totally baffling to me. Gender prference is NOT the same as gender (sex?) or race, as both are granted EXPLICIT protection by constitutional amendment(s), and "gender preference" or "orientation" or any other GLBT terminology of the day, is NOT mentioned in thye constitution as federal power or as an individual right, therefore per the 10th amendment it is "up to the several states" to decide, which ALL of them have. Some in favor of changing their marriage laws to include/allow SSM, many leaving them as is, but ALL are constitutional as NO mention of either marriage or GLBT rights are mentioned in the constitution, it is and shall remain a state gov't power.
Click to expand...

Do you not understand that interracial marriage was about racial preference, as same sex marriage is about sex/gender preference, when it comes to choosing a mate/spouse?

Racial rights, specifically, are not mentioned in the Constitution, as far as equal protection goes. They are a part of the whole in the equal protection clause, which also includes sexuality and sex/gender and religion and blood relationship status and many other things that could be compared to each other.

If the laws said "only heterosexuals can legally get married", there would be little debate as to whether this violated the EPC because it would be obvious that it did.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Lots of blather there Z, but very incoherent. I NEVER said or implied that SSM was unconstitutional. Some states have allowed SSM (by changing their state marriage law) yet most do not allow SSM (per existing state marriage law), which is ALL constitutional. Perhaps, instead of using "impressive" phrasing and big words, you could concentrate on simply making some sense.
Click to expand...

WOW...defensive much? Wasn't trying to use "impressive prhasing and big words". Wasn't even necessarily trying to argue with what you were saying. Simply was launching off of your comments about the 14th amendment and SSM as a new "right" and your seeming focus about considering it under the 14th as a "Concept".

I don't think it needs to be considered as a "Concept". I actually think some of the issues you mentioned regarding that to be legitimate possible issues. I was simply stating my own take in terms of SSM and the 14th amendment...which is that it's not an issue concerning sexuality but one concerning gender discrimination.

Specifically I was speaking most toward this line:

"As to the applicability of the 14th amendment ALONE allowing SSM as a new "right", I would say no. I base this on no dislike for SSM, only that race and gender are fixed, easily defined things, whereas "sexual preference" is well, a "concept", that is not related directly to either race or gender. "

Here you're suggesting, it seems, that the 14th amendment alone shouldn't allow for SSm as a new "right" based on you feeling that "sexual preference" is a "concept" and as such wouldn't fall under it as much as gender and race. I think there's legitimacy to your view point there. However, I was pointing out that one could argue for the applicability of the 14th amendment ALONE allowing SSM as a new "right" (using your own "impressive big phrasing and words" there) by arguing it not based on "sexual preference" but on gender discrimination. A thing that, you yourself states, is a more "easily defined" and "fixed" thing.

Specifically...marriage laws in this country set up a situation where a Man can do something a woman can't do, and vise versa. That is, a man is allowed to marry a woman...a woman is not. A woman is allowed to marry a man, a man is not.
 
It is ridiculously unimportant.

All gay marriages should be legal - it is no one's business but theirs who they marry.
 
roguenuke said:
Maybe we didn't need it but people believed we did so they ensured that it was quite clear that both black men and then women were viewed as equal to men and not property or lesser citizens. Just because something is done, doesn't mean it was necessary.
Click to expand...

LOL. What do you think the term "LEGAL PRECEDENT" means? I think it means that, if it was done (or decided) before then it stands of its own weight, not having to be "redecided" in all such future cases, simply referenced in a decision "as law". So using THAT logic constitutional action for "GLBT rights" needs a constitutional amendment, just as race and gender did. We shall see what the SCOTUS thinks. Far too many are willing to substitute the "opinions" of 5/4 of our nine robed umpires of the day, as equivalent to the actual words of the constitution (or an amendment), a VERY dangerous thing, IMHO.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Big assumptions but not legal facts. Explain what in the 15th (banning racial voting restrictions) or 19th (banning gender voting restrictions) amendments WAS NOT covered by the 14th amendment WHEN USING YOUR "interpretation" of the equal protection clause.
Click to expand...

One of the issues of the fact that the SCOTUS essentially invested itself with the power of Judicial Review is the fact tht what is or isn't covered under the 14th is more up to the thoughts of 9 Justices rather than some universal, consistent, unquestionable baseline. As such, a constitutional amendment provides an avenue to get something passed that may actually already, theoritically, be allowed by the constitution but because the current make up of the court doesn't judge it so then for practical purposes it isn't.

A hypothetical to explain my point. Lets say, for some strange and odd reason, the SCOTUS just remains relatively silent on cases regarding automatic weapons bans. Not directly saying the laws are unconstitutional under the 2nd amendment, but neither overturning them. An amendment could be passed saying "People can own automatic weapons". Looking back...people could say that its inclusion in the constitution as an amendment proves the 2nd amendment doesn't cover it, but inreality it came about because the SCOTUS refused to actually take a stance either way about the 2nd amendment covering it.

Additionally, in terms of the 15th and 19th...because the right to vote I believe is a constitutional issue, not simply a privledge granted by legislatively passed federal law, there could be issues with the 14th applying to it. Essentially it brings the question of whether or not the constitution has the power to invalidate other constitutional provisions without a direct statement of doing so (IE if the constitution says "white men can vote" and then passes an amendment saying "laws much be applied equally" [really really paraphrasing here] does that amendment have the power, in its broad statement, of over riding the other part of the constitution or does it apply to lower law and an amendment specifically addressing the constitutional matter is needed to change it). It's at least a slightly more clouded issue.
 
DA60 said:
It is ridiculously unimportant.

All gay marriages should be legal - it is no one's business but theirs who they marry.
Click to expand...

Is that your opinion of polygamy as well? If not then WHY not?
 
DA60 said:
It is ridiculously unimportant.

All gay marriages should be legal - it is no one's business but theirs who they marry.
Click to expand...

Hate this argument.

No, who someone marries in a private ceremony is no ones business but those being married and those who they choose to involve in that business.

However...

When talking about the PUBLIC notion of Marriage which involves PUBLIC benefits from the government, on behalf of the tax payers and voters, then it does at least mildly become the business of every other citizen in the country.
 
When there is injustice to one group in America...there is injustice to all.

America will never achieve its true greatness until it fulfills its underlying promise of freedom and justice for ALL.

So I think its very important.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
LOL. What do you think the term "LEGAL PRECEDENT" means? I think it means that, if it was done (or decided) before then it stands of its own weight, not having to be "redecided" in all such future cases, simply referenced in a decision "as law". So using THAT logic constitutional action for "GLBT rights" needs a constitutional amendment. We shall see what the SCOTUS thinks. Far too many are willing to substitute the "opinions" of 5/4 of our nine robed umpires of the day, as equivalent to the actual words of the constitution (or an amendment), a VERY dangerous thing, IMHO.
Click to expand...

You're not making any sense here.

Then you are saying there should have been an Amendment to legalize interracial marriage throughout the country because even after the 14th was put in place, interracial marriage bans were ruled not to violate the Amendment. The same for segregation. So, I guess you believe that that too should have had an Amendment to address it?

It is the job of the SCOTUS to interpret the Constitutional Amendments. They exercise at least some restraint in doing so but everyone will complain about something or other.

We should not have to put every single right that the states or federal government should not be allowed to abridge in the Constitution. The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th is actually a pretty good Amendment to ensure that people are treated pretty fairly, particularly those who can show they are "similarly situated" in regards to other groups, but they are being treated unequally. This requires the state to provide the rationale for why it feels it is in the state's interest to not treat those two groups equally. The Constitution is meant to limit the government and the laws of the government, not say that the citizens are only allowed to do what is specified in the Constitution.
 
Zyphlin said:
One of the issues of the fact that the SCOTUS essentially invested itself with the power of Judicial Review is the fact tht what is or isn't covered under the 14th is more up to the thoughts of 9 Justices rather than some universal, consistent, unquestionable baseline. As such, a constitutional amendment provides an avenue to get something passed that may actually already, theoritically, be allowed by the constitution but because the current make up of the court doesn't judge it so then for practical purposes it isn't.

A hypothetical to explain my point. Lets say, for some strange and odd reason, the SCOTUS just remains relatively silent on cases regarding automatic weapons bans. Not directly saying the laws are unconstitutional under the 2nd amendment, but neither overturning them. An amendment could be passed saying "People can own automatic weapons". Looking back...people could say that its inclusion in the constitution as an amendment proves the 2nd amendment doesn't cover it, but inreality it came about because the SCOTUS refused to actually take a stance either way about the 2nd amendment covering it.

Additionally, in terms of the 15th and 19th...because the right to vote I believe is a constitutional issue, not simply a privledge granted by legislatively passed federal law, there could be issues with the 14th applying to it. Essentially it brings the question of whether or not the constitution has the power to invalidate other constitutional provisions without a direct statement of doing so (IE if the constitution says "white men can vote" and then passes an amendment saying "laws much be applied equally" [really really paraphrasing here] does that amendment have the power, in its broad statement, of over riding the other part of the constitution or does it apply to lower law and an amendment specifically addressing the constitutional matter is needed to change it). It's at least a slightly more clouded issue.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the clear, readable reply. I understand completely why a clearly worded, explicitly stated, ratified, constitutional amendment was made. What I disagree with you on, is that ABSENT any actual constitutional reference to a "concept" that the SCOTUS can say, well it is "kind of like" or "it would follow from xxxx that yyyy would be OK". Words have meaning, that do not "change over time", especially to ADD/DELETE new "concepts" or "classes".

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).
 
Last edited:
ttwtt78640 said:
Thank you for the clear, readable reply. I understand completely why a clearly worded, explicitly stated, ratified, constitutional amendment was made. What I disagree with you on, is that ABSENT any actual constitutional reference to a "concept" that the SCOTUS can say, well it is "kind of like" or "it would follow from xxxx that yyyy would be OK". Words have meaning, that does not "change over time", especailly to ADD new "concepts" or "classes".

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).
Click to expand...

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.
 
roguenuke said:
You're not making any sense here.

Then you are saying there should have been an Amendment to legalize interracial marriage throughout the country because even after the 14th was put in place, interracial marriage bans were ruled not to violate the Amendment. The same for segregation. So, I guess you believe that that too should have had an Amendment to address it?

It is the job of the SCOTUS to interpret the Constitutional Amendments. They exercise at least some restraint in doing so but everyone will complain about something or other.

We should not have to put every single right that the states or federal government should not be allowed to abridge in the Constitution. The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th is actually a pretty good Amendment to ensure that people are treated pretty fairly, particularly those who can show they are "similarly situated" in regards to other groups, but they are being treated unequally. This requires the state to provide the rationale for why it feels it is in the state's interest to not treat those two groups equally. The Constitution is meant to limit the government and the laws of the, not say that the citizens are only allowed to do what is specified in the Constitution.
Click to expand...

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 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.

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom