Proposition 8 discussion continued

[diamond]

Where in the constitution is it a "right" for hetrosexuals to marry?

<>

 

[phillyfan26]

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?

 

[A_Wanderer]

14 Amendment

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.

 

[martha]

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.

 

[diamond]

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.

<>

 

[melon]

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.

 

[martha]

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

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.

 

[A_Wanderer]

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.

 

[diamond]

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.

<>

 

[melon]

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.

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.

 

[diamond]

now, now name calling never crafted legislation.

<>

 

[phillyfan26]

And your (lack of) logical reasoning doesn't create reasonable discussion on the issue.

 

[phillyfan26]

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.

 

[toscano]

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.

 

[diamond]

now, now name calling never crafted legislation.

<>

qft.

 

[toscano]

And your (lack of) logical reasoning doesn't create reasonable discussion on the issue.

qft

 

[diamond]

i prefer legislation to discussion.

<>

 

[toscano]

i prefer legislation to discussion.

<>

Don't let the door hit you on the way out then, unless of course legislation is now possible in this forum......

 

[toscano]

i prefer legislation to discussion.

<>

Legislating bigotry doesn't not make you a bigot....

 

[BoMac]

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.

No. By your definition, how is calling a civil union the same as marriage, particularly when civil unions are not recognized at the national level the same way marriage is?

diamond,
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.

 

[diamond]

Legislating bigotry doesn't not make you a bigot....

qfvbg*

*quoted
for
very
bad
grammar

<>

 

[diamond]

No. By your definition, how is calling a civil union the same as marriage, particularly when civil unions are not recognized at the national level the same way marriage is?

sounds like you and the movement have to define gay civil unions and their rights on national and state levels.

best,

<>

 

[BoMac]

sounds like you and the movement have to define gay civil unions and their rights on national and state levels.

best,

<>

Perfect. You avoided directly answering my question. Just what I expected.

 

[diamond]

i also find it funny how the left is ready to chuck the electoral college invoking pure democracy reasons but when pure democracy works against them they equate the citizens as a people from a "bannana republic".

read you.

<>

 

[phillyfan26]

Just because I believe that civil rights shouldn't be voted away doesn't mean I'm a hypocrite. That's the point of the civil rights: to have certain things that cannot be voted away.

Proposition 8 was tyranny of the majority, something founding fathers wanted to avoid.

 

[melon]

i also find it funny how the left is ready to chuck the electoral college invoking pure democracy reasons but when pure democracy works against them they equate the citizens as a people from a "bannana republic".

read you.

<>

What the fuck are you even talking about? Can I suggest a book of logic? Because these non sequitors do not help your case one bit.

An advanced democracy does not subject minority civil rights to the tyranny of the majority. Period. Issues with the electoral college or lack thereof have crap to do with minority rights.

 

[melon]

now, now name calling never crafted legislation.

<>

What name calling?

 

[toscano]

qfvbg*

*quoted
for
very
bad
grammar

<>

As I said, legislating bigotry doesn't not make you a bigot, the finding of the typo, the comments on mis-spellings and being a grammar nazi is an internet forum crutch for those have no reasonable argument left.

 

[yolland]

Sometimes it's a waste of one's time debating certain topics with certain people...everyone knows nothing mutually illuminating will come of it, and all that results is fraying tempers and snarky jibes. Why bother? Even on the internet, you can still pick and choose your battles. Might as well go for those that at least have potential to go somewhere--if not towards agreement or compromise, then at least towards a helpful insight into how someone else thinks. Anything less than that gets pretty old pretty quickly.

 

[anitram]

^

Honestly this thread is a perfect example of what I meant when I was having that discussion about Sean about how it's simply not worth and not possible to change some people's minds. They are flat out bigots and discussion will NOT result in anything illuminating.