Proposition 8 discussion continued - Page 33 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 11-21-2008, 10:41 PM   #481
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 03:53 AM
Where in the constitution is it a "right" for hetrosexuals to marry?

<>
__________________

__________________
diamond is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2008, 11:19 PM   #482
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 05:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by diamond View Post
Where in the constitution is it a "right" for hetrosexuals to marry?

<>
This is an honest question:

Do you understand how the Constitution works? (i.e.: That something doesn't have to be explicitly stated in it?)

Have you ever heard of the "Necessary and Proper" clause?
__________________

__________________
phillyfan26 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2008, 11:21 PM   #483
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 08:53 PM
14 Amendment
Quote:
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
If heterosexual citizens have a right to state recognised marriage contracts then homosexuals must be allowed the same.

The US constitution leaves room for gay marriage, it has been the reactionaries who are pushing for an amendment explicitly banning gay marriage.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2008, 11:50 PM   #484
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,334
Local Time: 02:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
it has been the reactionaries who are pushing for an amendment explicitly banning gay marriage.

That's why Californians had to make it an amendment instead of just a law.
__________________
martha is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2008, 12:21 AM   #485
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 03:53 AM
Quote:
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
I'm trying to find the word "marriage" in that statement- I do not find it.


Is sexual orientation protected under the constitution?

Are hetrosexuals protected under the constitution?
Are homosexuals protected under the constitution?

Are we all equal?
Yes.

Is a gay cpl different from a straight cpl?
Yes.
They are of the same sex.



Can they celebrate their cplhood by making it publicly official?

Yes.

The same way married people can?

Yes, it's called a Gay or Civil Union.

What's the argument then?

Gay people have trouble with pure democracy, and won't accept the will of the people, insisting their unions to be called "marriage" when marriage connotes a union of people of the opposite sex-while ""gay unions" connotes a union of people of the same sex.

<>
__________________
diamond is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2008, 12:57 AM   #486
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 05:53 AM
diamond,

1) Separate categories with supposedly same rights is referred to as "separate but equal," which was determined to be unconstitutional in dealing with segregation. Considering that everyone believes "civil unions" to be inferior to marriage at a dignity level, at the very least, it is "separate but equal."

2) Your statement about "pure democracy" is nonsense. An advanced democracy, in contrast to a "banana republic," is to protect the "inalienable rights" of the minority from the majority. Hence, diamond, we have the Constitution that would prevent the majority from banning Mormons as a heretical movement, even if a majority of them hated Mormons and wished for them to go away. All the more ironic that you wish for homosexuals to be subject to populist whims, particularly since you belong to a particularly hated minority in America.
__________________
melon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2008, 01:36 AM   #487
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,334
Local Time: 02:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by diamond View Post

Gay people have trouble with pure democracy, and won't accept the will of the people,
Apparently, black people had trouble with pure democracy as well.

Saying No to Proposition 14 - TIME


Quote:
The language of Proposition 14 on the 1964 California ballot appealed to the voters. According to the California Real Estate Association, it left the state "neutral" in real estate dealings. Its terms were the terms of personal freedom in the use and disposition of private property. It also wiped out the provisions of the Unruh and Rumford acts, which banned racial discrimination in the renting of apartments and in the sale or rental of private dwellings containing more than four units. By an overwhelming vote of almost 2 to 1, the electorate approved Proposition 14, which became Section 26 of the California constitution.
__________________
martha is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2008, 01:46 AM   #488
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 08:53 PM
I don't think that is a valid comparison, allowing racists to discriminate is more free than using state force to coerce them into serving people they hate.

I think that is a fair and consistent argument that doesn't justify or support racism and supports a property owners freedom of association and minimises state interference.

Legalising gay marriage doesn't involve any coercion, churches will not be forced to sanctify homosexual unions, this makes it much more clear cut in my mind.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2008, 09:06 AM   #489
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 03:53 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by melon View Post
diamond,

1) Separate categories with supposedly same rights is referred to as "separate but equal," which was determined to be unconstitutional in dealing with segregation. Considering that everyone believes "civil unions" to be inferior to marriage at a dignity level, at the very least, it is "separate but equal."

2) Your statement about "pure democracy" is nonsense. An advanced democracy, in contrast to a "banana republic," is to protect the "inalienable rights" of the minority from the majority. Hence, diamond, we have the Constitution that would prevent the majority from banning Mormons as a heretical movement, even if a majority of them hated Mormons and wished for them to go away. All the more ironic that you wish for homosexuals to be subject to populist whims, particularly since you belong to a particularly hated minority in America.
Freedom of Religion is protected under the Constitution.

I think the Homosexual movement has 2 moves:

a) have their sexual orientaiton protected under the constitution more than hetrosexuals.

or

b) (which would be easier and more appropriate)

legislate that gay unions have the exact same benefits as marriage.

Those are your choices.

<>
__________________
diamond is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2008, 09:55 AM   #490
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 05:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by diamond View Post
Freedom of Religion is protected under the Constitution.
Yes and no. No, it's not in the original Constitution. Yes, it's in the First Amendment. "Equal protection" is in the Fourteenth Amendment, so we're on the exact same footing here.

Quote:
I think the Homosexual movement has 2 moves:

a) have their sexual orientaiton protected under the constitution more than hetrosexuals.

or

b) (which would be easier and more appropriate)

legislate that gay unions have the exact same benefits as marriage.

Those are your choices.

<>
Oh yes. We want "more rights" than heterosexuals, and we're going to get the Illuminati and the Flying Spaghetti Monster to overthrow the government and create the New World Order to do it.

Seriously, do you ever hear this conspiratorial nonsense and ever ask "why"? At the very least, I'm reminded why one despised minority almost entirely lacks empathy for another; they're too busy trying to prove to the majority that they're just as bigoted as them, so they can be accepted as part of the "dominant hegemony" themselves. I'm sorry, diamond, no amount of irrational homophobia is going to make bigoted mainstream Christians accept you as one of them, and, frankly, you'd be better off anyway.
__________________
melon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2008, 11:29 AM   #491
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 03:53 AM
now, now name calling never crafted legislation.

<>
__________________
diamond is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2008, 11:35 AM   #492
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 05:53 AM
And your (lack of) logical reasoning doesn't create reasonable discussion on the issue.
__________________
phillyfan26 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2008, 11:36 AM   #493
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 05:53 AM
In what way do homosexuals want "more protection" or "special protection?" I keep hearing this, but I've never seen it. Not once. This isn't some affirmative action. They want equality. You want to give them "separate but equal," a demonstrably failing idea.
__________________
phillyfan26 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2008, 11:59 AM   #494
Refugee
 
toscano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,032
Local Time: 03:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by phillyfan26 View Post
In what way do homosexuals want "more protection" or "special protection?" I keep hearing this, but I've never seen it. Not once. This isn't some affirmative action. They want equality. You want to give them "separate but equal," a demonstrably failing idea.
Don't you see ? The LDS is very caring towards homosexuals, they spent over $30M to ensure that their "equality" was protected.........

Melon's post was spot on, they want to be part of the "greater-bigot" club, but the greater-bigots are a lot smarter than the LDS, they'll take their money but won't let them in anyway, Mitt's run will be in ruins.

Just wait until 2012 when we hear them bleating about anti-LDS bigotry, karma's a bitch.
__________________
toscano is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2008, 12:01 PM   #495
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 03:53 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by diamond View Post
now, now name calling never crafted legislation.

<>

qft.
__________________

__________________
diamond is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:53 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com