diamond
ONE love, blood, life
Where in the constitution is it a "right" for hetrosexuals to marry?
<>
<>
Where in the constitution is it a "right" for hetrosexuals to marry?
<>
If heterosexual citizens have a right to state recognised marriage contracts then homosexuals must be allowed the same.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.
it has been the reactionaries who are pushing for an amendment explicitly banning gay marriage.
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Gay people have trouble with pure democracy, and won't accept the will of the people,
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.
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.
<>
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.
And your (lack of) logical reasoning doesn't create reasonable discussion on the issue.
i prefer legislation to discussion.
<>
i prefer legislation to discussion.
<>
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.
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.
Legislating bigotry doesn't not make you a bigot....
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,
<>
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.
<>
now, now name calling never crafted legislation.
<>
qfvbg*
*quoted
for
very
bad
grammar
<>