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.
That's not QUITE accurate. The Same Sex Marriage band were ruled unconstitutional, not because of a violation of the 1st Amendment's establishment clause, but as a violation of two provisions of the 14th Amendment. Here's a quote from the 4th District Appeals Court in Richmond that struck down Virginia's ban on Same Sex Marriages and applied to all the states in the 4th district:
Quote:
Via various state statutes and a state constitutional amendment, Virginia prevents same-sex couples from marrying and refuses to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. Two same-sex couples filed suit to challenge the constitutionality of these laws, alleging that they violate the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court granted the couples' motion for summary judgement and enjoined Virginia from enforcing the laws. This appeal followed. Because we conclude that Virginia's same-sex marriage bans impermissibly infringe on its citizens' fundamental right to marry, we affirm.
I have a link to the entire ruling that I will share if anybody wants to read it.
In any event, I have yet to see the argument made that sexual preference is an intrinsic trait that is the same as skin color.
I'm sure you've seen the argument countless times, you just refuse to accept it. Sexual orientation is an innate characteristic for the vast majority of humanity. This is backed by personal anecdote, common sense, and science/medicine.
In that regard, it is similar to skin color. It's an innate quality that has a large impact on one's life and has been a target of discrimination and unconstitutional laws in this country.
Perhaps you're confusing behavior with orientation. Orientation doesn't define behavior. One need not engage in any type of sexual behavior to have a sexual orientation. Most gays are not discriminated against based on their behavior, but based on their attractions (or perceived attractions).
I'm sure you've seen the argument countless times, you just refuse to accept it. Sexual orientation is an innate characteristic for the vast majority of humanity. This is backed by personal anecdote, common sense, and science/medicine.
Prove it please. And while you're at it, please explain why homosexuality needs to be a protected class, while those that practice adultery, or polygamy, or even pedophilia are not worthy of protection.
Until then, the rest of your argument is irrelevant.
Why would we want something like that? I've certainly not expressed anything close to that.
It makes as much sense as saying two people of the same sex shouldn't be allowed to marry. Don't allow people of different religions to marry. After all, there isn't the slightest doubt that one's religion is a choice, unlike one's sexual orientation.
It makes as much sense as saying two people of the same sex shouldn't be allowed to marry. Don't allow people of different religions to marry. After all, there isn't the slightest doubt that one's religion is a choice, unlike one's sexual orientation.
Again....the Constitution guarantees freedom of Religion. It's in the Bill of Rights. It does NOT guarantee freedom to marry, or to have sex. Maybe you ought to read it?
Again....the Constitution guarantees freedom of Religion. It's in the Bill of Rights. It does NOT guarantee freedom to marry, or to have sex. Maybe you ought to read it?
The court said people DO have a "right to marry." Sometimes, the government uses the Preamble to justify some actions. This one could very well be defended using he "pursuit of happiness" clause.
I'm not an automobile mechanic, so I defer to the recommendations of qualified people to decide what I need to do to my cars. Similarly, I defer to the understanding of federal appeals courts justices for interpretation of the Constitution. They are much better qualified than I.
Again....the Constitution guarantees freedom of Religion. It's in the Bill of Rights. It does NOT guarantee freedom to marry, or to have sex. Maybe you ought to read it?
A law banning someone from civilly marrying someone of a different religion wouldn't be unconstitutional under the 1st Amendment (or any other Bill of Rights Amendment) - civil marriage has nothing to do with the practice of religion whatsoever.
Such a law would be unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment - just like a law banning interracial couples from civilly marrying is unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment - and just like a law banning gay couples from civilly marrying is unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment.
They are simply wrong. There is no discrimination. It equally prohibits me from marrying someone of the same gender as anyone else.
Courts do make mistakes. They are not infallible. You realize that, right?
Well, mensaguy...there you go. The courts are "simply wrong". Such is the mindset of fundamentalists. They aren't wrong, everyone else is wrong. Courts.....judges......legal rulings...laws......
Unless the law is backed by people like the Duggars then.... presto! The law is obviously from God himself.
No...no it really isn't. Because race is not the same as a choice of whom one wants to have sex with.
Yes...yes, it 100% is. It is an exact, 100% LEGAL analogy. The REASONING is exactly analogous. That race and sexual orientation are different is utterly irrelevant. The LOGICAL REASONING is exactly the same.
Quote:
I'm sorry....your argument really makes absolutely no sense. Instead of actually clearly explaining it, you restate your opinion, but don't given an explanation of why you believe it to be correct.
Again, the fact you're resorting to the argument that race and sexual orientation are different shows you're not making an argument that gay marriage bans don't discriminate. It's quite the opposite - this argument assumes that both gay marriage bans and interracial marriage bans discriminate (the former on the basis of sexual orientation, the latter on race). This argument makes the distinction between race and sexual orientation in order to explain and justify why it's okay to discriminate based on sexual orientation, but why it's not okay to do so on race. It's the argument of an anti-gay bigot justifying discrimination against gay people.
I can't make that any clearer, so if you can't understand it, that's your problem.
Last edited by hammertime33; 12-27-2014 at 02:33 PM..
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.
