Steve Young's family up against Mormon church on Prop. 8

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

What I find so ironic is that so many members of the "small government" crowd think the government should decide whether people are afforded fundamental rights on the basis of their sexual preferences.

Also, big ups to Saden for citing Loving v. Virginia. Dude knows his history. I don't necessarily think it violates the Equal Protection clause, but it's plain wrong to deny homosexuals the right to marry.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by BleedBurgundy

Again, I don't hate gays, but I don't think children should have that particular viewpoint forced on/presented to them as a valid option.

But children, including homosexual children, should have the opposite viewpoint forced on them?

Also, there are millions of kids in this country who will NEVER get adopted. There are thousands of gay couples who try to adopt children. But you would rather see those kids NEVER get get adopted than to see them adopted by gay couples who are willing to spend thousands of dollars to raise a young child?

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

What I find so ironic is that so many members of the "small government" crowd think the government should decide whether people are afforded fundamental rights on the basis of their sexual preferences.

Also, big ups to Saden for citing Loving v. Virginia. Dude knows his history. I don't necessarily think it violates the Equal Protection clause, but it's plain wrong to deny homosexuals the right to marry.

I don't think they realize their argument goes something like this:

We think they [people of African ancestry] are . . . not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word "citizens" in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States. . . .

Chief Justice Roger B. Taney,
Speaking for the Majority
Dred Scott v. Sandford

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

I don't necessarily think it violates the Equal Protection clause, but it's plain wrong to deny homosexuals the right to marry.

Why not?

[DynamiteRave]

Originally Posted by BleedBurgundy

Link. I know it's not popular, but I for one am very happy to see this measure pass. No one is saying that these individuals shouldn't have the right to live as they choose, but it supports the traditional definition of marriage being between a man and a woman. I'd also like to see more legislation to prevent anyone choosing to live an "alternative lifestyle" from adopting. Again, I don't hate gays, but I don't think children should have that particular viewpoint forced on/presented to them as a valid option.

Couldn't you say the same thing about heterosexuality? And nobody is forcing views on anyone. Plenty of research has been done to show no correlation between being raised by gay parents and the child growing up to be gay.

In fact a girl I was friends with in high school, grew up with two mothers. Came out a 3.5 gpa student, heterosexual, went on to do good things with her life.

If you disagree with it from a religious standpoint, I can understand that. But just saying that being gay is an option isn't really how it works. It's not like by being around gay people you're "going to catch the gay"

That's almost like saying you don't want kids exposed to interracial couples because you don't want them to think that racially mixing is okay.

99% of the time, being gay isn't a choice. Ask anyone who's gay. Sure there are some with bad experiences that turn for solace in the same sex. But everyone that I know, and knowing myself (since I've dabbled in a few things before), I didn't ask for this. It's just the hand that gay people were dealt. I find it a bit troubling that people like to think that people consciously make a decision whether or not to love someone of the same sex or of the different sex.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by saden1

Why not?

Generally speaking, the Equal Protection clause has been used to strike down laws that discriminate on the basis of gender, race, national origin and religion. Laws prohibiting gay marriage probably do not discriminate on the basis of any of those categories.

I say "probably" because some lawyers believe they discriminate on the basis of gender. They argue that laws prohibiting gay marriage deny couples marriage licenses on the basis of their "collective gender" (i.e., he's a man and his partner is a man, therefore they cannot marry) and therefore run afoul of the Equal Protection clause.

Most lawyers, however, do not look agree. Rather, they say the Equal Protection clause applies to individuals and no person is denied a marriage license on the basis of his or her gender. They also advance the somewhat circular argument that the right to marry means the right to have a relationship between two members of the opposite sex recognized by the state. So, laws prohibiting gay "marriage" do not deny homosexuals any recognized/traditional right.

[Dirtbag59]

The only place I feel that the gay movement is overextending is showing 2nd graders (or some very young group of children) a book called the prince and the prince (as opposed to the prince and the princess). However it's kind of funny how it ended up uniting two groups of biggots to supress the rights of another group of people.

I can't even think of a fair way to not allow gay marriage. The closest thing is people might abuse it to get tax breaks and maybe take advantage of the rule in which you can't testify about what a spouse told you. However thats a huge reach and you can do the same thing with straight couples.

I'm tired of the conservative movement and one of the things that make me jump for joy is the fact that the Supreme Court Justices will probably be more on the liberal side and hopefully undo the damage of the uptight neocon judges. Hopefully the liberals don't let me down this time.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

Generally speaking, the Equal Protection clause has been used to strike down laws that discriminate on the basis of gender, race, national origin and religion. Laws prohibiting gay marriage probably do not discriminate on the basis of any of those categories.

I say "probably" because some lawyers believe they discriminate on the basis of gender. They argue that laws prohibiting gay marriage deny couples marriage licenses on the basis of their "collective gender" (i.e., he's a man and his partner is a man, therefore they cannot marry) and therefore run afoul of the Equal Protection clause.

Most lawyers, however, do not look agree. Rather, they say the Equal Protection clause applies to individuals and no person is denied a marriage license on the basis of his or her gender. They also advance the somewhat circular argument that the right to marry means the right to have a relationship between two members of the opposite sex recognized by the state. So, laws prohibiting gay "marriage" do not deny homosexuals any recognized/traditional right.

Does it not depend on the standards used for review? Under traditional restrained review I don't see how these laws don't violate the equal protection clause on the basis of economic hardship (i.e. some common law marriage laws do not automatically protect a partner from family members of a deceased partner from laying claim to their collective assets) or on the basis of "invidious discrimination."

The traditional standard of review of equal protection challenges of classifications developed largely though not entirely in the context of economic regulation.

''The Fourteenth Amendment enjoins 'the equal protection of the laws,' and laws are not abstract propositions.'' Justice Frankfurter once wrote. ''They do not relate to abstract units, A, B, and C, but are expressions of policy arising out of specific difficulties, addressed to the attainment of specific ends by the use of specific remedies. The Constitution does not require things which are different in fact or opinion to be treated in law as though they were the same.'' The mere fact of classification will not void legislation, then, because in the exercise of its powers a legislature has considerable discretion in recognizing the differences between and among persons and situations. ''Class legislation, discriminating against some and favoring others, is prohibited; but legislation which, in carrying out a public purpose, is limited in its application, if within the sphere of its operation it affects alike all persons similarly situated, is not within the amendment.'' Or, more succinctly, ''statutes create many classifications which do not deny equal protection; it is only 'invidious discrimination' which offends the Constitution.'

Under the new active review ban on gay marriage is clear cut violation of the equal protection clause.

When government legislates or acts either on the basis of a ''suspect'' classification or with regard to a ''fundamental'' interest, the traditional standard of equal protection review is abandoned, and the Court exercises a ''strict scrutiny.'' Under this standard government must demonstrate a high degree of need, and usually little or no presumption favoring the classification is to be expected.

Paradigmatic of ''suspect'' categories is classification by race. First in the line of cases dealing with this issue is Korematsu v. United States, concerning the wartime evacuation of Japanese- Americans from the West Coast, in which the Court said that because only a single ethnic-racial group was involved the measure was ''immediately suspect'' and subject to ''rigid scrutiny.'' The school segregation cases purported to enunciate no per se rule, however, although subsequent summary treatment of a host of segregation measures may have implicitly done so, until in striking down state laws prohibiting interracial marriage or cohabitation the Court declared that racial classifications ''bear a far heavier burden of justification'' than other classifications and were invalid because no ''overriding statutory purpose'' was shown and they were not necessary to some ''legitimate overriding purpose.'' ''A racial classification, regardless of purported motivation, is presumptively invalid and can be upheld only upon an extraordinary justification.''Remedial racial classifications, that is, the development of ''affirmative action'' or similar programs that classify on the basis of race for the purpose of ameliorating conditions resulting from past discrimination, are subject to more than traditional review scrutiny, but whether the highest or some intermediate standard is the applicable test is uncertain. A measure which does not draw a distinction explicitly on race but which does draw a line between those who seek to use the law to do away with or modify racial discrimination and those who oppose such efforts does in fact create an explicit racial classification and is constitutionally suspect.

Toward the end of the Warren Court, there emerged a trend to treat classifications on the basis of nationality or alienage as suspect, to accord sex classifications a somewhat heightened traditional review while hinting that a higher standard might be appropriate if such classifications passed lenient review, and to pass on statutory and administrative treatments of illegitimates inconsistently.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Dirtbag359

The only place I feel that the gay movement is overextending is showing 2nd graders (or some very young group of children) a book called the prince and the prince (as opposed to the prince and the princess). However it's kind of funny how it ended up uniting two groups of biggots to supress the rights of another group of people.

I can't even think of a fair way to not allow gay marriage. The closest thing is people might abuse it to get tax breaks and maybe take advantage of the rule in which you can't testify about what a spouse told you. However thats a huge reach and you can do the same thing with straight couples.

I'm tired of the conservative movement and one of the things that make me jump for joy is the fact that the Supreme Court Justices will probably be more on the liberal side and hopefully undo the damage of the uptight neocon judges. Hopefully the liberals don't let me down this time.

Alito, Thomas, Roberts aren't going anywhere any time soon and if Scalia (72) and Kennedy (72) have good genes they'll be around for a while. Thankfully Obama will get to replace all the non-conservative judges.

[BleedBurgundy]

Originally Posted by saden1

WTF do you think a ban on gay marriage does? Isn't the view point being pushed by proponents of the ban "gay marrige is not OK?"

Don't get it twisted homie this ban is a variation of Loving v. Virginia which is to say it a clear violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment:

To my way of thinking, the homosexual lifestyle is inherently wrong. So that's why I have no issue with children having the natural order of things "forced" upon them. That's my problem with it. I'm not forcing my views on others in that they wouldn't be able to do what they want, I'm saying children should be protected from something that is immoral and wrong on a fundamental level. Everybody's got their opinions and positions, this one is mine. It's not based in hatred, it's based on my own sense of right and wrong. And for what it's worth, in the three states where it came up for vote, the majority of citizens agreed with me.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by saden1

Alito, Thomas, Roberts aren't going anywhere any time soon and if Scalia (72) and Kennedy (72) have good genes they'll be around for a while. Thankfully Obama will get to replace all the non-conservative judges.

Justice Kennedy will occasionally lean towards the libertarian/socially liberal side, as he did with Lawrence v. Texas back in 2003 which struck down state laws prohibiting certain sex acts between consenting adults.

But he also sided with the majority in the dreadful Kelo v. New London, Connecticut ruling, which allowed localities to use eminent domain for virtually any purpose they see fit. So he's truly the wildcard in any Supreme Court case.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by BleedBurgundy

To my way of thinking, the homosexual lifestyle is inherently wrong. So that's why I have no issue with children having the natural order of things "forced" upon them. That's my problem with it. I'm not forcing my views on others in that they wouldn't be able to do what they want, I'm saying children should be protected from something that immoral and wrong on a fundamental level. Everybody's got their opinions and positions, this one is mine. It's not based in hatred, it's based on my own sense of right and wrong. And for what it's worth, in the three states where it came up for vote, the majority of citizens agreed with me.

So someone should be thrown in jail because their moral beliefs differ from yours? And I've never been more convinced that a person is proven right based on the fact that there are more people who agree with him than me. If you stood for civil rights for black people in the state of Alabama in 1958 -- you'd be in the minority by far. But that doesn't mean you're wrong and the majority is right.

If you don't mind, I'd like to pick your brain a bit to find out why you think homosexuality is "inherently wrong" -- is it religous, or Biblically based? A violation of natural law?

[BleedBurgundy]

Originally Posted by DynamiteRave

Couldn't you say the same thing about heterosexuality?

Absolutely not. Without a doubt there is a natural and an unnatural side to this issue. I have no qualms about saying that.

Originally Posted by DynamiteRave

And nobody is forcing views on anyone. Plenty of research has been done to show no correlation between being raised by gay parents and the child growing up to be gay.

In fact a girl I was friends with in high school, grew up with two mothers. Came out a 3.5 gpa student, heterosexual, went on to do good things with her life.

If you disagree with it from a religious standpoint, I can understand that. But just saying that being gay is an option isn't really how it works. It's not like by being around gay people you're "going to catch the gay"

I'm probably one of the least religious people on this board. But I can do nothing except vote my conscience and in this case, this is how I feel. To all of those who say that "children are born gay" I don't really know how to respond, but I do know that there are periods in the development of a child where they are vulnerable to suggestion and environmental influence. So while they may not "catch the gay" as you so eloquently put it, there's no saying that they won't be negatively impacted by the constant Pro-Gay lifestyle they will obviously be raised in.

Originally Posted by DynamiteRave

99% of the time, being gay isn't a choice. Ask anyone who's gay. Sure there are some with bad experiences that turn for solace in the same sex. But everyone that I know, and knowing myself (since I've dabbled in a few things before), I didn't ask for this. It's just the hand that gay people were dealt. I find it a bit troubling that people like to think that people consciously make a decision whether or not to love someone of the same sex or of the different sex.

Again, I can't say how people are or are not born and I'm quite sure that nothing has been proven either way in this regard. I can only stay true to what I believe and this is something that has always strongly struck me as contrary to nature and therefore wrong. That's really the end all and be all of my argument, lacking in tangible data as it is. I would never attack anyone for their choices in this regard; but if someone, i.e. the government, asks me as a citizen to give my opinion on an issue that I feel impacts society, I will do so.

[BleedBurgundy]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

So someone should be thrown in jail because their moral beliefs differ from yours? And I've never been more convinced that a person is proven right based on the fact that there are more people who agree with him than me. If you stood for civil rights for black people in the state of Alabama in 1958 -- you'd be in the minority by far. But that doesn't mean you're wrong and the majority is right.

If you don't mind, I'd like to pick your brain a bit to find out why you think homosexuality is "inherently wrong" -- is it religous, or Biblically based? A violation of natural law?

Wow, where the hell did I say that? You see, this is somewhat amusing to me. It's always the far left leaning individuals among us that are the first to apply labels to those with opposing view points, yet the more conservative are branded the bigots. I have not once advocated any kind of "punishment" for anyone of any persuasion. Not only have I not said it, I don't feel it.

To answer your second question, my feelings are not based on any form of religion, as I personally am not a believer. To me, it is a violation of natural law.

[MTK]

We took a big step forward in electing an African American President, but it looks like we still have a long way to go in regard to sexuality and the ignorant thinking often involved with it. Sigh.