U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
 
Old 02-16-2015, 11:46 AM
 
Location: FROM Dixie, but IN SoCal
3,491 posts, read 5,301,108 times
Reputation: 3737

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by loriinwa View Post
When your marriage requires judicial activism to overturn the will of the majority of the citizens, that is controlling behavior and speech.
You really, really need to educate yourself on a few things.

First and foremost, the United States is a Constitutional Republic; it is not a democracy and it never has been. (Look it up.) A Constitutional Republic operates under the rule of LAW -- in this case, the Constitution -- even if said law or laws run counter to "the will of the majority of the citizens." In this way the rights of the minorities and less-politically-powerful groups are protected from the ravages, wills, and whims of any majority. The Founding Fathers wrote, and intended, it to operate in that exact way.

Second, what you derisively called "judicial activism" is nothing more, and nothing less, than the federal courts of appeal (incuding the SCOTUS) doing the very job the Founding Fathers intended them to do.

Third, it "is controlling behavior and speech" in the same exact way as it is illegal for someone to exercise his/her First Amendment Rights by shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded theater.

Finally, the arguments that you, and others like you, are making are by no means new. They've been used before, by people who were attempting to (a) prevent former slaves from gaining full citizenship, (b) prevent women from gaining the right to vote, and (c) prevent the Civil Rights Act from becoming law. There are others, of course, but these will do for now.

And thus concludes the lesson in basic 9th grade Civics.

-- Nighteyes (who is Straight, but not Narrow)
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-16-2015, 11:58 AM
 
Location: FROM Dixie, but IN SoCal
3,491 posts, read 5,301,108 times
Reputation: 3737
FOLLOW-UP:

Loriinwa,

If you wish to change this, here's how. First, you must manage to repeal the Fourteenth Amendment because it is the one that guarantees all people the equal protection of the laws. Second, you must manage to pass and ratify another Constitutional amendment that defines marriage as you wish it to be defined.

I'm pretty sure you won't be able to repeal the Fourteenth and, unless it is repealed,your new Amendment will quickly be ruled unconstitutional.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-16-2015, 12:00 PM
 
9,112 posts, read 4,534,544 times
Reputation: 3730
Quote:
Originally Posted by maf763 View Post
Is it non-gays that have to?

Besides, there are plenty of non-gays who actively work for anti-discriminatory laws.
True, plenty of non-gays support and fight for these laws. The point is, they don't argue that heterosexuals need the laws for themselves. Sure, I suppose once in a great while there's a case of discrimination or a hate crime based on heterosexuality. But let's not pretend that the laws extend 'equality' when their real purpose and intent is to establish lgbt as a special protected class.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-16-2015, 12:02 PM
 
7,412 posts, read 4,445,384 times
Reputation: 8379
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzarama View Post
True, plenty of non-gays support and fight for these laws. The point is, they don't argue that heterosexuals need the laws for themselves. Sure, I suppose once in a great while there's a case of discrimination or a hate crime based on heterosexuality. But let's not pretend that the laws extend 'equality' when their real purpose and intent is to establish lgbt as a special protected class.

But why is the special protected class being created? To give special rights? No, to ensure that members of the protected class are being treated equally.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-16-2015, 12:05 PM
 
107 posts, read 95,630 times
Reputation: 230
In a way I am actually supportive of direct democracy but people should not be allowed to pass laws that violate people's civil rights. There needs to be safeguards to protect minorities, especially when we are in a country with a bunch of homophobic heterosexuals (who conveniently happen to be the majority) who could just keep blocking any attempts at equality i.e. smashing people's face in with a boot over and over again forever.

As for 'enforcing the current law', the current law is not adequate in most states now including Kansas once more. This move effectively excludes LGBT from equal rights and therefore it's not 'gays wanting special privileges'. In a perfect world we wouldn't need anti-discrimination laws but what do you know people are prejudiced *******s and discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. You all probably just want to keep up with the prejudice yourselves. I mean come on, some of you are throwing a fit over ****ing anti-discrimination laws. This doesn't mean 'omg the gays are takong over!!!' At all.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-16-2015, 12:07 PM
 
Location: FROM Dixie, but IN SoCal
3,491 posts, read 5,301,108 times
Reputation: 3737
Quote:
Originally Posted by Francois View Post
Sorry, but many if not most anti-discrimination laws list specific demographics and sexual orientation is NOT one of them. You are correct that gays are not "more important" than anyone else, but you could say the same for racial minorities, women, people with disabilities, etc and all of them have anti-discrimination laws specifically spelled out to protect them. Enforcing the existing laws still allows an employer to fire an exemplary employee who happens to be gay in most areas, look it up.
Francois,

Perhaps it is you who needs to look things up. The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution guarantees that all people are afforded equal protection under the law. In the last 50 years it is under the Fourteenth that a lot of civil rights actions have been taken. That includes gay marriage, btw.

Groups don't have to be listed in order to be protected. Left-handed, brown-eyed people cannot be discriminated against just because of their membership in that particular group. Neither can LGBT people.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-16-2015, 03:17 PM
 
9,112 posts, read 4,534,544 times
Reputation: 3730
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nighteyes View Post
Francois,

Perhaps it is you who needs to look things up. The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution guarantees that all people are afforded equal protection under the law. In the last 50 years it is under the Fourteenth that a lot of civil rights actions have been taken. That includes gay marriage, btw.

Groups don't have to be listed in order to be protected. Left-handed, brown-eyed people cannot be discriminated against just because of their membership in that particular group. Neither can LGBT people.

If lgbt people were protected from discrimination by the 14th Amendment, there'd be no need to adopt state laws.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-16-2015, 05:40 PM
 
Location: Houston, TX
13,206 posts, read 7,423,414 times
Reputation: 27318
Quote:
Originally Posted by carlcockatoo View Post
In a way I am actually supportive of direct democracy but people should not be allowed to pass laws that violate people's civil rights. There needs to be safeguards to protect minorities, especially when we are in a country with a bunch of homophobic heterosexuals (who conveniently happen to be the majority) who could just keep blocking any attempts at equality i.e. smashing people's face in with a boot over and over again forever.

As for 'enforcing the current law', the current law is not adequate in most states now including Kansas once more. This move effectively excludes LGBT from equal rights and therefore it's not 'gays wanting special privileges'. In a perfect world we wouldn't need anti-discrimination laws but what do you know people are prejudiced *******s and discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. You all probably just want to keep up with the prejudice yourselves. I mean come on, some of you are throwing a fit over ****ing anti-discrimination laws. This doesn't mean 'omg the gays are takong over!!!' At all.
And that is what the KS Governor is doing. I wonder if the courts will step on and stop this somehow. After all, by making gay marriage legal in KS, they are making discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation illegal in a big way. It's so confusing the way gay marriage is becoming legal via state by state, mostly via the court system, but not federally. Although 37 states being legal is a big victory, we're still a long way from the 50 we need
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-16-2015, 05:49 PM
 
Location: FROM Dixie, but IN SoCal
3,491 posts, read 5,301,108 times
Reputation: 3737
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scooby Snacks View Post
It's so confusing the way gay marriage is becoming legal via state by state, mostly via the court system, but not federally. Although 37 states being legal is a big victory, we're still a long way from the 50 we need
"Patience, Grasshopper; patience!" As the old saying goes, "Rome wasn't built in a day." Things are mostly progressing exactly as they should; the Supreme Court is wisely refraining from weighing in on things the Appellate Courts should decide. The ultimate eventual verdict is clear.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-16-2015, 05:54 PM
 
Location: Gatineau, QC, Canada
3,402 posts, read 4,236,588 times
Reputation: 4399

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhnUgAaea4M
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top