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.
No, sexual orientation is not a protected class, confirmed by the Supreme Court ruling..
It still gets rational basis review under equal protection. (Romer v. Evens). Protected classes only mean that you get strict or heightened scurtiny standards depending on the class
No, sexual orientation is not a protected class, confirmed by the Supreme Court ruling with the Boy Scouts of America lawsuit
See above
Federal courts do not outweigh Supreme Court rulings.. While you might be looking at a timeline to base your opinion, I'm basing mine on a top down.. Supreme Court rulings ALWAYS over rule federal ones, and the Supreme Court has SPECIFICALLY ruled that you could discriminate against gays..
Again you still need a rational basis, to discriminate you cannot pass laws based on animus (additionally there is the state action doctrine you have to consider when comparing cases) government has different requirements under the 14th amendment then origanizations/people unless those organizations meet certain exceptions e.g. entwinement
Again, there is no equal protection for sexual ORIENTATION.. Only SEX.. They are not the same.. And no one is denying someones first amendment either.. Who said gays cant say they are gay?
Yes there is its called rational basis review
Again sex is not sexual orientation.. Stop confusing the two..
Considering the government wrote the legal definition, then ONLY the government can do something about it..
i think you are mis-understanding my purpose here in order to defend something that isnt under attack.. I happen to think limiting gay marriage is unconstitutional, (yes, I reversed my position on this based upon reading legal arguments in support) but I think so based upon different grounds...The Constitution protectsion ones pursuit of happiness, and an argument could be made that marriage helps equate to happiness. This can only be legally true because the government created the definition of "marriage", and offers tax credits for being married..
The only alternative is to have the government get out of the marriage business completely (my prefernce).. Stop offering credits, stop defining marriage, stop setting policies to entice (or in the case of welfare, discourage) marriages from taking place..
But again, this does NOT mean gays are protected because they have a "sex" because if they did, then the Boy Scouts would have lost their claim for permission to discriminate.. They didnt...
I think you may be ignoring the state actions doctrine but I would have to look at the Boy Scouts case. Equal protection is not limited to protected classes. Its just that most cases involving a non-protected class lose because rational basis is a relatively easy standard to meet.
Gays at one point were "minorities" just like current poligamists.. If you are going to argue the LEGAL changes taking place, then you must review ALL of the ramifications of any changes made..
America is a Representative Republic for a reason. We are setup to protect the minorities in america, and since poligamists are minorities, and the SAME justification can be used, then you MUST look at the possible outcomes and discuss them as well prior to writing bad law..
What on Earth are you on about? No one is talking about writing any laws. Were are discussing the Constitutionality of one law - specifically DOMA, and the possible striking down of that law. Aren't we? I'm unaware of any intent to write any new legislation.
I've already said I support polygamists' right to get married. What's your point? You're against same-sex marriage and plural marriage, is that it?
While I fully support my wife being able to find another woman and bringing her into our marriage, there's more to it than simply "Well, let's give them legal recognition too".
Actually there isnt.. Either you are going to recognize the ability for people to enter into a marriage "contract", and not have the government dictate who can and under what terms, or you arent..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phantasy Tokoro
Mainly, we'd have to rewrite tax laws to include multiple spouse households.
tax laws.. BINGO, thats the ONLY reason the federal government is involved with "marriage" to begin with.. the fact that they have to rewrite tax laws to allow multiple spouses isnt my concern.. Either you are going to allow marriage contracts with individuals, without government dictating the terms, or you arent..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phantasy Tokoro
That, and inheritance rights (which can easily be fixed by writing a decent will) are the biggest barriers to poly marriage.
That wouldnt be very difficult at all, and no different than writing up estates to deal with multiple children..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phantasy Tokoro
Outside of that, if all parties are consenting, then they should be able to do whatever they want with the relationionship within the bounds of the law.
And right now, all parties can do what they want without the bounds of the law.. its just many disagree with the laws limitations.
I think you may be ignoring the state actions doctrine but I would have to look at the Boy Scouts case. Equal protection is not limited to protected classes. Its just that most cases involving a non-protected class lose because rational basis is a relatively easy standard to meet.
The Bou Scouts case specifically states that gays are not a protected class.. I quoted it above..
Actually there isnt.. Either you are going to recognize the ability for people to enter into a marriage "contract", and not have the government dictate who can and under what terms, or you arent..
tax laws.. BINGO, thats the ONLY reason the federal government is involved with "marriage" to begin with.. the fact that they have to rewrite tax laws to allow multiple spouses isnt my concern.. Either you are going to allow marriage contracts with individuals, without government dictating the terms, or you arent..
And I'm all for allowing them.
As long as all parties consent to the arrangement.
I'd just like to see gov't recognition of any consenting relationship. (I.e.: Same-sex, poly, incest)
No, sexual orientation is not a protected class, confirmed by the Supreme Court ruling..
No, sexual orientation is not a protected class, confirmed by the Supreme Court ruling with the Boy Scouts of America lawsuit
I never said it was. But sex is. That's the point. The law applies differently depending on the sex of the participants, and without a discernable rational basis - at least not one what will fly in this day and age.
Quote:
Federal courts do not outweigh Supreme Court rulings.. While you might be looking at a timeline to base your opinion, I'm basing mine on a top down.. Supreme Court rulings ALWAYS over rule federal ones, and the Supreme Court has SPECIFICALLY ruled that you could discriminate against gays..
In a different context than this, which involves a fundamental right and which constitutes disparate treatment based on SEX, not SEXUAL PREFERENCE.
As another poster has already explained, the cases are distinguishable on grounds you don't address. The Boy Scout decision is not necessarily controlling on the equal protection vis-a-vis sex issue.
Quote:
Again, there is no equal protection for sexual ORIENTATION.. Only SEX.. They are not the same.. And no one is denying someones first amendment either.. Who said gays cant say they are gay?
Quote:
Again sex is not sexual orientation.. Stop confusing the two..
I think you are the one confused here, because you don't seem to understand the argument.
Quote:
Considering the government wrote the legal definition, then ONLY the government can do something about it.
Subject to citizens having the law declared unconstitutional, which is what will happen. sooner or later.
Quote:
i think you are mis-understanding my purpose here in order to defend something that isnt under attack.. I happen to think limiting gay marriage is unconstitutional, (yes, I reversed my position on this based upon reading legal arguments in support) but I think so based upon different grounds...The Constitution protectsion ones pursuit of happiness, and an argument could be made that marriage helps equate to happiness. This can only be legally true because the government created the definition of "marriage", and offers tax credits for being married..
LOL...no.
Quote:
The only alternative is to have the government get out of the marriage business completely (my prefernce).. Stop offering credits, stop defining marriage, stop setting policies to entice (or in the case of welfare, discourage) marriages from taking place..
That is not the only alternative. It's also not really related to the issue of equal protection. As long as they DO have marriage laws, they have to meet constitututional muster.
Quote:
But again, this does NOT mean gays are protected because they have a "sex" because if they did, then the Boy Scouts would have lost their claim for permission to discriminate.. They didnt...
What on Earth are you on about? No one is talking about writing any laws. Were are discussing the Constitutionality of one law - specifically DOMA, and the possible striking down of that law. Aren't we? I'm unaware of any intent to write any new legislation.
Not true.. The DOMA law states that one state does not have to recognize a marriage taken place in another state, but removal of the DOMA law doesnt change the LEGAL definition of marriage, which is 1 male, 1 female. In order for gay marriages to take place, you must also change the legal definition of marriage as well..
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
I've already said I support polygamists' right to get married. What's your point? You're against same-sex marriage and plural marriage, is that it?
I'm not arguing against same sex marriage at all, I've already said I supported gay marriages as a constitutional right protected by the pursuit of happiness section.. I'm saying though that you cant just limit this protection to gays because doing so, then "discriminates" against others who would then be denied their pursuit of happiness..
Not true.. The DOMA law states that one state does not have to recognize a marriage taken place in another state, but removal of the DOMA law doesnt change the LEGAL definition of marriage, which is 1 male, 1 female. In order for gay marriages to take place, you must also change the legal definition of marriage as well..
I'm not arguing against same sex marriage at all, I've already said I supported gay marriages as a constitutional right protected by the pursuit of happiness section.. I'm saying though that you cant just limit this protection to gays because doing so, then "discriminates" against others who would then be denied their pursuit of happiness..
Just FYI, no one cites to the "pursuit of happiness" section.
Not true.. The DOMA law states that one state does not have to recognize a marriage taken place in another state, but removal of the DOMA law doesnt change the LEGAL definition of marriage, which is 1 male, 1 female. In order for gay marriages to take place, you must also change the legal definition of marriage as well..
Which abolishing DOMA makes that easier.
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.
