Reply With Quote
Or better yet, why don't we deny fundamental rights simply because we don't like some people.
Since we now have liberal leaning idiots claiming that gay marriage should be legal because the law doesn't specifically define "marriage" as being between man and woman, why not now push for a measure to define "man" and "woman". Since those terms are also not defined specifically in the law.
Lets not even end it there. THe cons ution grants rights to citizens. what exactly is a citizen? A citizen can be an armadillo or an amoeba(sarcasm). Why dont we put forth initiatives to define the legal meaning of "Citizen".
Or better yet, why don't we deny fundamental rights simply because we don't like some people.
^^or better yet. Quit being a moron by implying that every one that opposes gay marriage hates gays. You have no basis for your views.
I guess you're right. I mean, I just rely on the Cons ution of the United States of America, but that's really no basis at all, at least when you get done with it.
^^show me oh wise sage where the cons ution allows for gay marriage. maybe it's hidden in the back in watermark.
Where it provides that every person is en led to equal protection of the laws. If the law allows one group to be married, it seems pretty clear to me that expressly depriving another group of that right (just because we don't like the way they live their lives) is a denial of equal protection.
For crissakes, you'll let any swinging , hetero felon to get married, but heaven forbid that two guys or two women who've never done a single thing wrong in there lives have the same right.
Not even. Equal protection laws do allow equal acces to all citizens. But it's basis is on race and gender and origin. Orientation is a choice and behavior and not benign. Gays do not have a fundamental right in marriage. TO recieve strict scrutiny for gays you must prove that gays have been historically denied that privelege and that they cannot do anything about it to cir vent it. Up till now have they made a ruckus. If marriage by definiton is between man and woman, then then you cannot give that right to sexuals since they dont meet the criteria of man and woman. Marriage is not a tool to marry en y a to en y b. it is strictly between man and woman. Just like the court cannot give equal reproductivce rights to man because it's only the woman that springs the seed.
You cannot use the eQUAL PROTECTION LAWS TO marry your mother, or father. (sorry to dissapoint Manny.)
People need to quit focusing on the word marriage because obviously the state cant sanction any marriage be it straight gay bestial or otherwise. Their one and only resposibility in this matter is civil unions, and gay people should be looking into pushing their rights to civil unions. The fact that Texas just defined marriage as one man and one woman really should bring about one possible response: complete and total apathy (because I dont know of anyone who belongs to the Church of Texas, so who cares how they define it). As long as civil unions are in tact they could define chicken as yellow since no one is taking communion at their church. Now if gays want to get married, go talk to the methodists, catholics, baptists, etc.
we need to now focus on keeping the ######s from marrying our pure white women.
A racist that likes to point fingers at everyone else. Does not understand the definition of "mirror".
I thought a "citizen" was any white, land-owning male.
That is how the term used to be defined.
________
Web Shows
Last edited by Mr. Peabody; 08-23-2011 at 06:46 PM.
There used to be laws that defined any interracial relationship as illicit sex and not a marriage. Since illicit sex was illegal, interracial marriages were illegal.
These didn't violate equal protection because they applied equally to everybody. Blacks couldn't marry whites and whites couldn't marry Blacks.
________
KINKYsubxxx
Last edited by Mr. Peabody; 08-23-2011 at 06:47 PM.
Whoever told you that the Equal Protection Clause applies only to fundamental rights or only to suspect classes told you wrong. The Cons utionality of any discriminatory law can be challenged on equal protection grounds. In reviewing a law on that basis, there are different levels of judicial scrutiny, which reflect the degree to which certain groups are in need of protection and the utility of the law in question.
You're right inasmuch as laws that discriminate based on race are subject to strict scrutiny. But so are laws that limit fundamental rights. And, curiously, the right to marry someone who will marry you has been deemed a fundamental right.
Strict scrutiny essentially supposes that the challenged law is uncons utional, and requires the government to identify a compelling interest that the law is meant to accomplish and to prove that the law is narrowly tailored to achieving that interest.
It's why laws prohibiting inter-racial marriage were struck down as, ahem, violative of the equal protection clause (because there is no compelling interest in prohibiting the races from marrying).
It's also why laws prohibiting things like incest and bigamy in the marriage context will always survive equal protection challenges (because there is a compelling interest in prohibiting the deleterious scientific and social effects of both practices and a ban on such marriages does not chill the individual right to marry in the first instance).
But equal protection challenges aren't limited to cases in which strict scrutiny applies. Laws that discriminate on the basis of gender, for example, are reviewed using what is called intermediate scrutiny, which requires the government to set forth an important interest to be achieved by the law and show that the separate classification of a gender is substantially related to the achievement of that interest. The same test applies to laws that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. The Supreme Court has struck down laws after conducting reviews applying intermediate scrutiny.
Thus, a cons utional challenge to the recent amendment to the Texas Cons ution doesn't depend on sexual orientation being a suspect class and it likely doesn't depend on the application of strict scrutiny, despite your contentions above.
I think you could get intermediate scrutiny on this issue, because the issue involves gender discrimination. What important governmental interest could the state put forth as its reason for the ban?
________
Sexyvioleta
Last edited by Mr. Peabody; 08-23-2011 at 06:47 PM.
gtown when you were growing up were you naturally attracted to girls or did you look at little boys, wonder, then girls, weigh pros and cons and then decide to be hetero?
The direction I would go would be to argue the governmental interest in maintaining marriage as a unique heterosexual lifelong intimate relationship because of the obviously much higher likelihood of generativity, notwithstanding the existence of non-generative marriages.
Continued generativity in the absence of committed lifelong heterosexual relationships as the usual social construct has a notably deleterious effect on society, as can be observed in certain socioeconomically disadvantaged subcultures.
With regard to the generativity issue, while there certainly are exceptions gay marriage proponents might point out, such as adoption, artificial insemination, and so forth, that does not change the underlying reality of the greater ease with which heterosexual partners in general can conceive via natural means, and the state interest in maintaining the social construct of marriage.
The state then has to demonstrate the deleterious effect on the ins ution when it its heteronormativity is taken away, when partners are no longer husbands and wives. I don't think that is so difficult.
Where the state would go too far is if it denied the rights and privileges allotted to married couples to those in other kinds of committed relationships which cons ute a household. There is no compelling state interest I can think of to deny custody or guardianship rights, medical visitation, Social Security benefits, inheritance, etc.
And if it is substantially more difficult for commiited lifelong partners in a household to secure those benefits, then I think you have a problem with equal protection.
But the problem is not with marriage itself per se.
they're all child molesters, haven't you heard? read your bible--it's somewhere in there about gays being bad. I don't really know but my preacher told me. why would he lie? he reads the bible every day. the bible says not to lie. ipso factso, gays are bad.
Are you talking about preachers or about sexuals?
________
apartments for sale Pattaya
Last edited by Mr. Peabody; 08-23-2011 at 06:47 PM.
HayOhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
________
Peak Towers Condominium Pattaya
Last edited by Mr. Peabody; 08-23-2011 at 06:47 PM.
Does anybody want to address my substantive points, or are you more comfortable going on assuming I'm a gay-bashing Neanderthal?
Because in Neanderthal, my post can be translated:
.
MeLTdowN!!!!
1) So your solution is to deny those children have same-sex parents the comfort and security that comes along with those parents being married. You just noted the deleterious effects of such a scenario.
2) I am not aware of any studies showing that the children of same sex parent are maladjusted or demonstrate characteristics of being harmed by their parents situation
3) You are gay-bashing bigot
________
Pattaya Heights Condos
Last edited by Mr. Peabody; 08-23-2011 at 06:48 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
