Is America’s Next Presidential Election About To Look Like An Episode of “Dynasty”? (spokesman, March)
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.
Sorry, but that's a pathetic reason for legal bigotry. Most of us now recognize this, which is why you're on the losing side of history. Just like those who opposed abolishing slavery.
This tact of framing homosexuality as a civil rights issue is pretty slick, but inherently flawed. It is not "bigoted" to have moral, religious and spiritual standards.
This tact of framing homosexuality as a civil rights issue is pretty slick, but inherently flawed. It is not "bigoted" to have moral, religious and spiritual standards.
It is when you try and impose them on the rest of us. The US Constitution beats your "standards" every time.
Get used to it - we're moving forward, not backwards.
This tact of framing homosexuality as a civil rights issue is pretty slick, but inherently flawed. It is not "bigoted" to have moral, religious and spiritual standards.
It is bigoted to try and impose those moral, religious and spiritual standards on others who don't share them.
BTW, your little book also tells people not to eat anything that lives underwater and doesn't have scales. That verse isn't too far from the one you people use to browbeat gays. Why are you not protesting against eating catfish and shellfish?
I agree with you completely. Political correctness has made some "free speech" and value systems unacceptable, and those viewpoints that were majority views just 10-15 years ago are now considered unacceptable. Liberals are trying to pass new laws that would make criticizing homosexuals or other protected groups "hate speech". This would make it hard for a conservative religious person to hold a job, have friends or even maintain their freedom. This country is becoming less free every day, and its too late to stop the massive shift to the left through democratic means. Unless we have a rebellion or half the country secedes again they own this nation, and people who disagree with the "new America" had better shut up and get out of the way or face the wrath of their system. The fact that they are getting away with this in the south is proof of the depth of their victory. Our founding fathers must be just sick with what we have allowed to happen, not really the issue of gay marriage but the fact that the federal government has gained this much power and the states have done nothing to stop it. Again this is not just on gay marriage but a multitude of issues. In my opinion its time to break out the grey uniforms and revisit the spirit of 61.
Ugh, once again, no one is taking away your freedom to believe what you want to believe and say whatever you want to say. You are not, however, free from the repercussions of your speech. You can say whatever you want to say! But other people are just as free to say whatever they want to say back to you. You don't get a free pass from the consequences of your speech just because you think you're in the moral majority. And by the way, considering the hateful speech that many homosexuals get tossed at them, not to mention actual physical violence, I don't feel sorry in the least for people calling you hateful or bigoted when you say you're against same sex marriage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RosemaryT
This tact of framing homosexuality as a civil rights issue is pretty slick, but inherently flawed. It is not "bigoted" to have moral, religious and spiritual standards.
How is it not a civil rights issue? It's a trait that you're born with, just as much as heterosexuality is a trait you're born with. I've yet to find a heterosexual, myself included, that can tell me when they DECIDED to be straight. In the same way, I've yet to find a homosexual who can tell me when they DECIDED to be gay. It is very much bigoted to say, "I can have these rights but you cannot because I don't like the way you were born."
I am tired of the 14th amendment being used this way. This amendment was intended to protect ethnic minorities from institutional discrimination. It was not intended to protect every fringe group who claims a grievance. This equal protection clause could be used to allow polygamy, incest, heck people could claim they have a right to legally marry a tree. After all if people want to marry an oak tree don't they have the "right" to do it. Ex cons could claim they are not receiving "equal protection under the law" when they are not permitted to vote, the list goes on and on. States have the right to regulate all kinds of civil law, and marriage is one of them. These courts are out of line, and so is the federal government.
\
If you want gay marriage in your state, do it the right way and have it voted on by the citizens of your state, or by your state legislators. You have no right to force your will on the majority by the means of federal courts, or by federal usurpation of states rights.
The problem is the amendment does not limit itself to African Americans or any one group. It speaks of "persons". It has been used to protect the rights of women, racial minorities, and religious minorities. Gay people are no less "persons" than any other group in this country.
Applying it only to African Americans, former slaves, would be ignoring the clear language used by the drafters of the amendment.
The courts in our nation have the responsibility for interpreting our laws--which include the Constitution. The courts are clearly saying the amendment applies to gay people.
This is just a word of advice to you and all people who oppose gay marriage. There is an expression that is called "being on the wrong side of history". Those who would deny gay people the same rights that everyone else has are now on the wrong side of history. You are fighting a losing battle Whatever my feelings may have been thirty years ago, they are different now. The same is true for most of the people in this country.
Gay people have been historically stigmatized and singled out for prejudice and abuse. Giving them equal rights under the law and legitimizing gay marriage are ways to not only break the cycle of abuse and outright persecution, but perhaps to exercise some control over diseases like AIDS. If gay people can marry it encourages them to live a monogamous lifestyle. This may, in fact, be the best way to protect innocent people from AIDS.
I can see this. Maybe someday you will be able to see it too.
In any event, most of us are simply done letting a verse or two in the Book of Leviticus determine public policy in this country.
The problem is the amendment does not limit itself to African Americans or any one group. It speaks of "persons". It has been used to protect the rights of women, racial minorities, and religious minorities. Gay people are no less "persons" than any other group in this country.
Applying it only to African Americans, former slaves, would be ignoring the clear language used by the drafters of the amendment.
The courts in our nation have the responsibility for interpreting our laws--which include the Constitution. The courts are clearly saying the amendment applies to gay people.
This is just a word of advice to you and all people who oppose gay marriage. There is an expression that is called "being on the wrong side of history". Those who would deny gay people the same rights that everyone else has are now on the wrong side of history. You are fighting a losing battle Whatever my feelings may have been thirty years ago, they are different now. The same is true for most of the people in this country.
Gay people have been historically stigmatized and singled out for prejudice and abuse. Giving them equal rights under the law and legitimizing gay marriage are ways to not only break the cycle of abuse and outright persecution, but perhaps to exercise some control over diseases like AIDS. If gay people can marry it encourages them to live a monogamous lifestyle. This may, in fact, be the best way to protect innocent people from AIDS.
I can see this. Maybe someday you will be able to see it too.
In any event, most of us are simply done letting a verse or two in the Book of Leviticus determine public policy in this country.
True, the amendment by its own words applies to more than racial minorities. But this is why we have a tiered standard of judicial review when applying the 14th Amendment/EPC. For the area that the amendment was explicitly passed to address and that its framers hoped would have the greatest impact (i.e. race/color/national origin-based classifications), there is strict scrutiny. For other areas, the standard of review is lower (either intermediate scrutiny or rationale basis scrutiny). This tiered structure is necessary to prevent the amendment from being used (via judicial overreach) to invalidate certain discriminatory practices that its framers had no intention of applying the amendment to.
As gays as a group were not the main target of the 14th Amendment/EPC, its a tough sell to argue that laws that discriminate against gays are subject to heightened scrutiny, something that the Court has refused to do. Thus, applying a rationale basis standard of review, I don't see how traditional marriage amendments violate the 14th Amendment/EPC. Indeed, promoting procreation in marriage (and all of the benefits that a stable household via marriage will provide children) is more than sufficient in my view. Whether gay couples raising children could provide the same benefit as heterosexual couples is irrelevant under rational basis review as the Court has stated multiple times that discriminatory laws under rational basis review may be either underinclusive or overinclusive in their coverage. True, the Supreme Court has decided that laws that target a group for animus do not survive even rationale basis review, but I find it hard to claim that marriage amendments, which merely codified in state constitutions what had been the law in those states since their founding, meet that definition.
At the end of the day, though, intent of the framers matters as well when interpreting the Constitution. And, for those of us who are originalists in reading the document, we challenge others to make a serious argument that the framers of this amendment, who were from a much more conservative and religious period in this country's history, thought they were providing the kind of legal protection to gay couples that would invalidate traditional marriage amendments.
Note, I write this as someone who agrees with your reasons for legalizing same sex marriage as a matter of public policy and I personally support it and wish that every state in the Union would legalize it (there are very "rational" reasons to do so in my view). The way I interpret the Constitution, however, does not lead me to the same conclusions as you and others in reading whether the 14th Amendment/EPC requires states to recognize same sex marriages. This is where we differ.
I next bring up the implications of the legal rationale for legalizing same sex marriage under the 14th Amendment/EPC to date. Based on the reasoning being put forward by the federal courts of appeal, etc., in striking down marriage amendments, I don't see how the state can ban polygamy under the law. Indeed, if marriage is a fundamental right (which means restrictions on marriage are subject to strict scrutiny) as many federal courts of appeal have held, then I don't see the "compelling" governmental interest in banning polygamy.
The same goes for bans on certain incestuous marriages. True, a compelling governmental interest could be the health and welfare of children that would be produced from incest (the increased risk of physical and intellectual birth defects, etc.). But, even here, the outright ban on incestuous marriage would not be narrowly tailored (the second part of the strict scrutiny/fundamental right analysis) to achieving that interest. Indeed, the governments' restrictions on incestuous marriages are only narrowly tailored to achieving the interest of reducing children born from such relationships if they apply to people who are capable of producing children. People who cannot bear children but are otherwise banned from marrying each other under incest laws (i.e. a sterile man married to a non-sterile woman or a woman who has gone through menopause married to a man, among other examples) must be allowed to marry if marriage is truly a fundamental right. Note, this doesn't even get into gay incestuous marriages, which are also banned under incest laws even in those states that allow same sex marriage; the case for banning gay incestuous relationships is even weaker under this "fundamental right" argument as gay couples cannot, by way of basic biology, produce offspring from sexual intercourse! It is insane to suggest that the framers of the 14th Amendment/EPC envisioned the document requiring the sanctioning of such relationships, but this is the natural conclusion/extension of the fundamental right analysis/rationale (incorrectly and broadly citing to Loving v. Virginia) being offered by many federal courts of appeal to strike down state marriage amendments.
Last edited by prospectheightsresident; 03-06-2015 at 08:36 AM..
The problem is the amendment does not limit itself to African Americans or any one group. It speaks of "persons". It has been used to protect the rights of women, racial minorities, and religious minorities. Gay people are no less "persons" than any other group in this country.
Applying it only to African Americans, former slaves, would be ignoring the clear language used by the drafters of the amendment.
The courts in our nation have the responsibility for interpreting our laws--which include the Constitution. The courts are clearly saying the amendment applies to gay people.
This is just a word of advice to you and all people who oppose gay marriage. There is an expression that is called "being on the wrong side of history". Those who would deny gay people the same rights that everyone else has are now on the wrong side of history. You are fighting a losing battle Whatever my feelings may have been thirty years ago, they are different now. The same is true for most of the people in this country.
Gay people have been historically stigmatized and singled out for prejudice and abuse. Giving them equal rights under the law and legitimizing gay marriage are ways to not only break the cycle of abuse and outright persecution, but perhaps to exercise some control over diseases like AIDS. If gay people can marry it encourages them to live a monogamous lifestyle. This may, in fact, be the best way to protect innocent people from AIDS.
I can see this. Maybe someday you will be able to see it too.
In any event, most of us are simply done letting a verse or two in the Book of Leviticus determine public policy in this country.
Likewise, we are done letting anti-religious groups tell us what freedoms we can and cannot have when they legitimately conflict with our beliefs. Gay marriage is not really the issue for us; it's the fact that the federal government doesn't give a bit about our convictions and would rather force us to accept something we've been taught to oppose (in the case of gay marriage, the fear is that churches that oppose it will have to perform same-sex weddings or give up their tax-exempt status. It was the same with religious doctors and the fear of legalized abortion) than minister to our needs and convince us through winning our trust. Imagine trying to, without explanation, institute nudist colonies in the Muslim centers of the world; how do you think that would work out? That's why Alabama and some other states are deeply opposed to this change.
If, on the other hand, you came in another way, though, through the churches and community, we would listen and probably agree with this idea ourselves, but it's very hard to fight conscience, even if it's misguided. The thing that upsets me, though, is a lot of people with ill intent seem to have abused these avenues for decades to manipulate the people into making poor decisions.
Likewise, we are done letting anti-religious groups tell us what freedoms we can and cannot have when they legitimately conflict with our beliefs. Gay marriage is not really the issue for us; it's the fact that the federal government doesn't give a bit about our convictions and would rather force us to accept something we've been taught to oppose than minister to our needs and convince us through winning our trust. Imagine trying to institute nudist colonies in the Muslim centers of the world; how do you think that would work out? That's why Alabama and some other Southern states are deeply opposed to this change.
1. What freedoms are being taken away from you? The freedom to tell a gay person they can't be married? The freedom to tell gay people that their relationships are meaningless and unimportant? When someone starts telling you that you can't have a heterosexual marriage than you will have cause to complain that government is taking away your freedom.
2. No government can force you to enter into a gay marriage. No government can force you to attend or not attend a particular church. I don't know what other "religious liberties" you claim you are being deprived of. However, you haven't articulated one yet.
3. Alabama is going down a blind alley just like they did fifty years ago when they opposed civil rights for black people. They can't win this fight. Continuing to do battle will result in injunctions, awards of attorneys fees and general damages against the state and its officials, and the condemnation of most of America. Honestly, such a poor state with such a poor school system would do much better to concentrate on its real problems rather than indulge certain religious nuts in their homophobia.
4. Gay people will receive their rights whether certain people want them to or not. The world is changing and those who don't see the tide coming will be swept away with it.
1. What freedoms are being taken away from you? The freedom to tell a gay person they can't be married? The freedom to tell gay people that their relationships are meaningless and unimportant? When someone starts telling you that you can't have a heterosexual marriage than you will have cause to complain that government is taking away your freedom.
2. No government can force you to enter into a gay marriage. No government can force you to attend or not attend a particular church. I don't know what other "religious liberties" you claim you are being deprived of. However, you haven't articulated one yet.
3. Alabama is going down a blind alley just like they did fifty years ago when they opposed civil rights for black people. They can't win this fight. Continuing to do battle will result in injunctions, awards of attorneys fees and general damages against the state and its officials, and the condemnation of most of America. Honestly, such a poor state with such a poor school system would do much better to concentrate on its real problems rather than indulge certain religious nuts in their homophobia.
4. Gay people will receive their rights whether certain people want them to or not. The world is changing and those who don't see the tide coming will be swept away with it.
I've been trying to explain what I believe to be the common reason why people sometimes oppose laws that would otherwise be in the best interest of all people, but I see that my argument has either been ignored or turned into something I did not intend, so perhaps I should stop. I don't think anyone's interested anyway. The only time someone responds is when it looks like someone's choosing a side. My argument simply is we are not reasoning because we aren't considering the same perspectives.
Im glad you enjoy watching "people like me squirm". I however find nothing entertaining about watching my country destroyed, both its freedoms and its moral compass going down in such a short period of time. This nation is doomed to go down like Rome, dragged down by its decadence and immorality. What a sad time this is in history.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RosemaryT
It is, Daniel.
There's a reason that sodomy was illegal for 95% of our country's history.
Did you know that, as recently as 1986, the U. S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of sodomy laws?
As I said before, what changed?
Public opinion.
We're in trouble deep in this country.
We have children from here, UK and other places leaving home to join ISIS, psychos going on killing sprees, xenophobic Americans wanting to deport all Muslims, 9,300 people in the Oil Sector lost their job last month, teachers taking their students on camping trips to have cocaine-induced sex, bi-partisan politics is splitting the nation in two and you think gay marriage is going to destroy this country?
Priorities, people.
Like I said in a PoC thread about the anti-gay crowd - y'all better be pure as snow if you aren't married or were before, or you're just cherry-picking which sins disgust you the most. That's really what it boils down to.
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.
