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.
Homosexuality is not a race. A different, separate and non applicable issue entirely. Homosexuality involves attraction to the same sex, a behavior, not by any stretch of the imagination a race or racial issue. The court did NOT rule, infer, comment, imply or mention as to whether marriage was appropriate, about or even applicable to homosexual behavior or same sex partnerships whereas Loving v. Virginia did establish and affirm heterosexual marriage between races.
Attraction to the same sex is not a behaviour, it is part of ones sexual identification, no different then heterosexuals. The denial of us equal rights based on who we are attracted to is discrimination. We did not choose to be homosexual as you did not choose to be heterosexual. There is no reason to deny us equal marriage rights and options other than the fear of those against it. Giving us equal status and rights takes no rights from straight people, it puts us on an equal base. The reason given by ssm opponents are the same reasons used against interracial marriage when it was still banned.
Attraction to the same sex is not a behaviour, it is part of ones sexual identification, no different then heterosexuals. The denial of us equal rights based on who we are attracted to is discrimination. We did not choose to be homosexual as you did not choose to be heterosexual. There is no reason to deny us equal marriage rights and options other than the fear of those against it. Giving us equal status and rights takes no rights from straight people, it puts us on an equal base. The reason given by ssm opponents are the same reasons used against interracial marriage when it was still banned.
Bulloney.
If you'd read Loving, you'd learn the purposes of the anti-miscegenation law were "to preserve the racial integrity of its citizens," and to prevent "the corruption of blood," "a mongrel breed of citizens," and "the obliteration of racial pride," obviously an endorsement of the doctrine of White Supremacy."
The reasons given to oppose ssm might be just as horrible in your opinion, but are nothing like the ones given to support anti-miscegenation laws.
As Reconstruction collapsed in the late 1870s, legislators, policymakers, and, above all, judges began to marshal the arguments they needed to justify the reinstatement--and subsequent expansion--of miscegenation law. Here are four of the arguments they used:
1) First, judges claimed that marriage belonged under the control of the states rather than the federal government.
2) Second, they began to define and label all interracial relationships (even longstanding, deeply committed ones) as illicit sex rather than marriage.
3) Third, they insisted that interracial marriage was contrary to God's will, and
4) Fourth, they declared, over and over again, that interracial marriage was somehow "unnatural."
On this fourth point--the supposed "unnaturality" of interracial marriage--judges formed a virtual chorus. Here, for example, is the declaration that the Supreme Court of Virginia used to invalidate a marriage between a black man and a white woman in 1878:
The purity of public morals," the court declared, "the moral and physical development of both races….require that they should be kept distinct and separate… that connections and alliances so unnatural that God and nature seem to forbid them, should be prohibited by positive law, and be subject to no evasion.
The fifth, and final, argument judges would use to justify miscegenation law was undoubtedly the most important; it used these claims that interracial marriage was unnatural and immoral to find a way around the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection under the laws." How did judges do this? They insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites "equally." This argument, which is usually called the equal application claim, was hammered out in state supreme courts in the late 1870s, endorsed by the United States Supreme Court in 1882, and would be repeated by judges for the next 85 years.
Your point is incorrect, however. While there is a small chance that the rational basis could be applied, the evidence we have so far, to go along with the overall opinion of the legal community, is that the intermediate scrutiny test is the one likely to be applied over the other two.
FYI. Last week, the U.S. District Court for Nevada upheld the ban against ssm using the rational basis review. Another bigoted and hateful judge.
You're right. If this was a race case, strict scrutiny would apply and the bans on SSM overruled as well.
Quote:
The court did NOT rule, infer, comment, imply or mention as to whether marriage was appropriate, about or even applicable to homosexual behavior or same sex partnerships whereas Loving v. Virginia did establish and affirm heterosexual marriage between races.
It didn't have to. The rationale used for prohibiting interracial marriages closely mirrors the rationale used for prohibiting SSM, and the court rejected it outright.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzarama
FYI. Last week, the U.S. District Court for Nevada upheld the ban against ssm using the rational basis review. Another bigoted and hateful judge.
Just so I am clear here, are you suggesting that rational basis is what the SCOTUS should use in this case?
Hopefully the Supreme Court will get to it and just make a decision on this already. I also hope they do the right thing and prohibit it.
You hope they prohibit same-sex marriage? How would that be the right thing? Are you hoping we turn into a 3rd world country?
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.
