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.
The Ninth Circuit next year and the USSC in 2012? Seems about right to me, and from the comments I've seen from a few attorneys who are high court watchers.
You do not need to have a valid reason to discriminate. Thats where your wrong.. You are allowed to discriminate until the legal grounds to discriminate is removed.. Whites discriminated against blacks, men discriminated against women.. People discriminate against Jews, Catholics.. Discrimination is allowed unless you are protected by the government in a situation which says its not allowed..
There is no federal law protecting gays.. people are allowed to discriminate against them for no reason what so ever..
Isn't this exactly what's happening--the legal grounds to discriminate are being removed????
Which puts the ball back in your court, what is the justification to discriminate against gay people? Tradition? You put in the poll that you were undecided on this issue, so can you tell me what is the justification to legally discriminate against gay people? Is the anti-gay agenda just an intrusion of religion into government?
Did you bother to read the post I first replied to? Because that was exactly his implication. If that is not what he meant, then maybe he should come back and clarify .
Yes I read what you replied to.. Their intent was obvious because anyone over the age of 5 knows you can reproduce without being married..
Quote:
Originally Posted by MsMcQ LV
and learn to clearly state his position in the first place.
I'm still waiting for you to clearly state your position on "life, liberty, persuit of happiness" in the Constitution..
Quote:
Originally Posted by MsMcQ LV
Try the 14th amendment, wherein it states that no state shall make or enforce any law that abridges the privileges and immunities of any citizen of the United States.
The Supreme Court has ruled on numerous occasions that its legal for states to treat individuals different, and deprive them "priviledges".. For example, children cant drive cars, felons cant own fire arms. The courts also have also upheld laws which classify gender differences, such as domestic abuse laws.. So while you claim the 14th amendment "no state shall make or enforce any law that abridges the privileges and immunities of any citizen", the Courts have already ruled that they can except in situations that reach a higher suspect class.
Yes I read what you replied to.. Their intent was obvious because anyone over the age of 5 knows you can reproduce without being married..
I'm still waiting for you to clearly state your position on "life, liberty, persuit of happiness" in the Constitution..
The Supreme Court has ruled on numerous occasions that its legal for states to treat individuals different, and deprive them "priviledges".. For example, children cant drive cars, felons cant own fire arms. The courts also have also upheld laws which classify gender differences, such as domestic abuse laws.. So while you claim the 14th amendment "no state shall make or enforce any law that abridges the privileges and immunities of any citizen", the Courts have already ruled that they can except in situations that reach a higher suspect class.
Again, there has to be a rationale for the discrimination. The state can't decide that brown-eyed people should be prohibited from driving.
What is the rationale for depriving gay people of the "privilege" to marry?
There is no federal law protecting gays.. people are allowed to discriminate against them for no reason what so ever..
Which is part of what this case will settle if it goes to the SCOTUS - whether or not homosexuals are, in fact, a protected class. As Johnny C outlined earlier in the thread, it comes down to whether or not homosexuality is a status or a choice of conduct.
Currently the laws treat it as a choice of conduct - because that is what it has been presumed to be. But traditional beliefs are not the same as rule of law. In addition, we're coming to understand, slowly, that people no more wake up one day and choose to "become" homosexual than they wake up one day and choose to "become" heterosexual.
This is something I tried to address with one poster earlier... if homosexuals have chosen to become homosexual, when did s/he choose to become heterosexual? And what was s/he BEFORE they made that choice? Bisexual? Asexual? Trisexual? What?
That argument tends to get backed away from rather quickly once it arises - when confronted with the idea that they chose to be heterosexual, with the somewhat explicit implication riding with it that they then had the capacity to be homosexual instead as inherent within them as their heterosexuality apparently was... the discussion gets quickly diverted and the implications never addressed.
So SCOTUS will ultimately be ruling on status vs choice of conduct, and from there the laws will be adjusted - if needed - accordingly. I suspect SCOTUS will recognize it as a status, at which time discrimination against them will no longer be permissible under the law.
I also suspect that within the arguments presented, some savvy lawyer will bring up the potential for "choice of conduct" to still be a potential grounds for non-discrimination laws to apply. If a man or woman can choose to engage in high-risk behavior, which directly results in them becoming disabled, and then be afforded protection under the Americans with Disabilities Act... some lawyer is going to eventually present that as a precedent for "choice of conduct" to be grounds for protection in some circumstances.
This is why I think a final ruling on this MUST take a great deal of consideration and thought - because the implications are much more far reaching than just the obvious. Much like the Michigan amendment passed in 2004, which ended up having unexpected consequences for common law marriages. One of my husband's coworkers who had been a vocal and obnoxious supporter of the amendment was rather angry to find that his own "marriage" and attendant benefits were potentially negatively impacted by it via his common law wife's employer (the county). He blamed the "flaming homos for making the law necessary in the first place" of course.
Isn't this exactly what's happening--the legal grounds to discriminate are being removed????
Which puts the ball back in your court, what is the justification to discriminate against gay people? Tradition? You put in the poll that you were undecided on this issue, so can you tell me what is the justification to legally discriminate against gay people? Is the anti-gay agenda just an intrusion of religion into government?
Thats just it.. again, one does not need justification to discriminate, which has been backed up by the Supreme Court in numerous situations. The standards are
Laws that treat men and women differently must serve governmental objectives and be substantially related to those objectives to be deemed legal, so one could argue that its to the governmentals benefit to keep marriage the way it is in order to substain the "normal" lifestyle which exists today and to allow reproduction to expand to grow the population and thereby the taxbase..
And since its legal to treat women and men differently, than so would justification to treat a gay marriage differently than a straight one..
Everybody knows that homosexuality is a mental disorder. The only reason the APA removed that classification in 1973 was to please pro-homosexual political activists, not to be in line with science. To argue differently would be an open admittance that homosexuality is a learned behavior. Since gays vehemently deny that stance, we'll stick with the original diagnosis.
Before you go bashing and calling me a bible thumping neocon, remind yourself that Christians believe that all homosexuality is a learned behavior. I recognize that it is a mental deficiency acquired in the womb before birth. Saying that gays should not be allowed to wed would be identical to saying that the mentally retarded cannot marry. I personally believe that that would be unconstitutional.
But that does not mean I am in favor of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lmkcin
hey, Christian...speak for yourself. this Christian and no other Christian, Jew or hell Muslim I know, believe this either.
where's the proof is IS a mental anything? Oh wait there isn't any.
Who said I was a Christian? I was simply stating what I know Christians believe. You obviously misconstrued my post, as I believe, unlike ALL Christians I know, that people are born gay. I'm on your side, yet somehow I struck a nerve.
People born schizophrenic or bi-polar didn't have a choice in the matter, and I do not believe gays do either. But you cannot refute the fact that there is a reason why it was considered a mental disorder up till 1973. The only reason it was changed and declassified is because of pro-gay activism. If you do not believe that being gay is a genetic abnormality, you obviously believe that it is a learned behavior. So which one is it?
its about as cute as me calling you tinkerbell funny huh. i too am not a fan of christianity for other reasons. i am not the bigot i could care less if your gay but i know your not born that way. yes i know gays hate the bible and christianity because it says its wrong of course you wont like it but if it said hey god made adam a man to have sex with instead of eve you would all love the bible. but whatever i know a man who was gay for all his life and now has changed and no longer is gay. you can change, if you wanted to. it is possible. but i am not saying you should change either, you want to be gay go on i dont care, gays do not bother me its what they do that bothers me
This is false, as many of my gay and lesbian friends ARE Christian. And your 'proof' of this is? Sorry, but if he was gay, he's still gay - he's just in denial. And what do gays 'do' that bothers you? Is it the fact that they love another man? Because, frankly, who someone loves should bother no one.
Thats just it.. again, one does not need justification to discriminate, which has been backed up by the Supreme Court in numerous situations. The standards are
Laws that treat men and women differently must serve governmental objectives and be substantially related to those objectives to be deemed legal, so one could argue that its to the governmentals benefit to keep marriage the way it is in order to substain the "normal" lifestyle which exists today and to allow reproduction to expand to grow the population and thereby the taxbase..
And since its legal to treat women and men differently, than so would justification to treat a gay marriage differently than a straight one..
I think that if one argued that it's to the government's benefit to keep marriage the way it is for the reasons you listed, that one would be on extremely shaky ground. Those same grounds would substantially suggest that it's in the government's interest to outlaw birth control. Or that it's in the government's interest to dissolve marriages when women stop menstruating. After all, dissolving those marriages and absolving the government of the liability of honoring those spousal privileges would achieve those same goals you've described.
I think a better argument needs to be found, or people should accept that the rationale for discriminating against gays is insufficient Constitutionally.
But you cannot refute the fact that there is a reason why it was considered a mental disorder up till 1973. The only reason it was changed and declassified is because of pro-gay activism. If you do not believe that being gay is a genetic abnormality, you obviously believe that it is a learned behavior. So which one is it?
You do know that masturbation was once considered a mental disorder as well, right? As were female orgasms? Well, until they were then used as treatment for hysteria... a whole other conversation.
We also once thought lobotomies were a good idea, that shock therapy should be widely applied and that insanity was caused by being born under, or sleeping in sight of, a full moon.
I think it was just a few years back that we figured out the earth wasn't flat, too. I know... shocking.
Our definitions and beliefs are constantly changing and evolving based on new information and knowledge. No "pro-anything" agenda required.
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 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.
