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.
Civil marriage contracts confer to the people who enter into them some 1400 LEGAL RIGHTS. Many states, and the federal government, have passed laws that ban homosexuals from having or accessing these LEGAL RIGHTS (Maryland was the first to do so in 1973).
I, as a homosexual, want to be able to access those LEGAL RIGHTS. You're more than welcome to call it GREED if you want. I call it what it is - equal access to and equal treatment under the law (something our Constitution requires). How would you feel if Government discriminated against you and passed a law banning you from accessing the LEGAL RIGHTS of a civil marriage contract?
wrong its not a RIGHT...its a BENEFIT and a PRIVILEDGE
getting a tax break because you have a 'signifigant other' is not a right...ots a benefit...its about MONEY...ie GREED
its 1400 pieces of GREED, that you want a benefit, that SINGLE people cant/arent allowed to have
wrong its not a RIGHT...its a BENEFIT and a PRIVILEDGE
getting a tax break because you have a 'signifigant other' is not a right...ots a benefit...its about MONEY...ie GREED
its 1400 pieces of GREED, that you want a benefit, that SINGLE people cant/arent allowed to have
When one of our laws provides something (a benefit, a protection, a privilege, etc) it is called a LEGAL RIGHT. The laws and the LEGAL RIGHTS they provide must be applied equally and must be available to all citizens. That's what the 14th Amendment of our Constitution says.
Under your legal "theory" the government could define anything as a "benefit," and then deny it to any group of people for any reason. They could pass a law that only lets white, Christian, landowners access the "benefits" of a civil marriage contract. Government could pass a law only providing black bisexuals between the ages of 30-60 the "privilege" of driving on State provided roadways.
So I'll ask you this direct question. Lets say my state, Colorado, passed a law banning homosexuals from getting drivers licenses thereby denying them access to drive on State provided roadways. Would that be unconstitutional? Would such a law violate the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution? Why or why not?
That way one state legislature can make laws for all the other states!
That will definitely be more efficient than having individual states write their own laws. In fact, we can close down all the state legislatures except for the one liberals like best since those laws will apply in all other states.
You keep forgetting that piece of toilet paper on your shoe formerly considered our constitution.
When one of our laws provides something (a benefit, a protection, a privilege, etc) it is called a LEGAL RIGHT. The laws and the LEGAL RIGHTS they provide must be applied equally and must be available to all citizens. That's what the 14th Amendment of our Constitution says.
Under your legal "theory" the government could define anything as a "benefit," and then deny it to any group of people for any reason. They could pass a law that only lets white, Christian, landowners access the "benefits" of a civil marriage contract. Government could pass a law only providing black bisexuals between the ages of 30-60 the "privilege" of driving on State provided roadways.
So I'll ask you this direct question. Lets say my state, Colorado, passed a law banning homosexuals from getting drivers licenses thereby denying them access to drive on State provided roadways. Would that be unconstitutional? Would such a law violate the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution? Why or why not?
yes it would be unconstitutional, because you are saying one group cant have a PRIVILEDGE
but the POINT is that SINGLE people hetro or gay dont get these 'marriage' benefits...therefore they are DEISCRIMINATED against
the point is the gays...or what ever GROUP you want to talk about wants BENEFITS..ie MONEY..ie GREED
the simple answer is abolish all marriages, unions, and BENEFITS
yes it would be unconstitutional, because you are saying one group cant have a PRIVILEDGE
That's exactly what the laws banning gay people from civil marriage does. It's says that one group - homosexuals - can't have those privilideges (those legal rights) . I don't understand the difference you're trying to point out. They're both (banning gays from driving and banning gays from the legal rights of civil marriage) unconstitutional for the same reason (and for the same reason why laws banning interracial couples from accessing the legal rights of civil marriage contracts were banned unconstitutional).
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero
but the POINT is that SINGLE people hetro or gay dont get these 'marriage' benefits...therefore they are DEISCRIMINATED against
They're not discriminated against. They have every right and opportunity, assuming they're not homosexual, to contract a civil marriage and access those legal rights. That's something I am denied entirely because of the simple fact that I'm gay.
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero
the point is the gays...or what ever GROUP you want to talk about wants BENEFITS..ie MONEY..ie GREED
the simple answer is abolish all marriages, unions, and BENEFITS
It's not about greed. It's about equal treatment. It's really just that simple.
I'd be fine with abolishing the concept of civil marriages - however, if they are to be part of our civil law, then all citizens should (more then should, are Constitutionally required to) have the ability to access them.
I believe it will someday come about, but not anytime soon.
The eventual recognition of same-sex marriage will probably be determined by the courts because it is a constitutional matter, and besides, when it comes to civil rights and the rights of minority groups that is something that should not be determined by popular election.
I'd like to add the following. I'm sick and tired of some posters saying gays want "special rights"......ROFL....what a crock of crap.
The real special rights are given to those who pay the same taxes that I do; yet receive special rights and benefits called marriage, which with their sanctimonious hypocrisy they wish to deny others.
Gay marriage affects NOONE except the 2 gay people getting married! It's that simple! To think otherwise betrays that some people are selfish, self-centered and to be blunt...just plain hateful and mean spirited! And that's the truth!.
Senator John Kerry says: "D.O.M.A. was legalized discrimination and an abuse of the Constitution for political reasons".
D.O.M.A. denies more that 1,100 Federal Benefits, including Social Security and Tax Benefits to a segment of society and is therefore unconstitutional and discriminatory.
The RESPECT FOR MARRIAGE ACT will repeal key sections of D.O.M.A.; essentially allowing those states that implemented same sex marriage to have federal benefits for married same sex couples and to transfer those same federal benefits to other states if the couple were to move for example.
Sounds like a great idea to me with justice finally being implementated. However it is only a step in the right direction and mainly will nullify D.O.M.A., but not grant equal rights on a national level......yet!
My thoughts:
1) I thought Obama already said he would not enforce DOMA, so why are we still wasting time on this same piece of legislation?
2) It is not discrimination. These "rights" are already not in place for gay couples, so they can't be taken away.
3) This
Quote:
The RESPECT FOR MARRIAGE ACT will repeal key sections of D.O.M.A.; essentially allowing those states that implemented same sex marriage to have federal benefits for married same sex couples and to transfer those same federal benefits to other states if the couple were to move for example.
is overstepping some bounds for the same reason that Obamacare is unconstitutional.
yes it would be unconstitutional, because you are saying one group cant have a PRIVILEDGE
but the POINT is that SINGLE people hetro or gay dont get these 'marriage' benefits...therefore they are DEISCRIMINATED against
the point is the gays...or what ever GROUP you want to talk about wants BENEFITS..ie MONEY..ie GREED
the simple answer is abolish all marriages, unions, and BENEFITS
You say "Benefits", but it's really more about protections that come with that legal piece of paper. Committed gay couples that share their lives togthter must draw up expensive contracts to disburse their belongings when they die, for example. If they were legally married and hetro, the widow (er) would receive all of the other's belonging, tax free! There is a case right now in NY where a widow who was married to her wife for 40+ years (in Canada) was charged almost $400,000 in estate taxes (death taxes) when her wife died. If they had been legally married and the Federal law recognized them, it would have passed to her tax free! Isn't it unfair that committed couples such as these don't have the benefit that legally married hetro couples do?
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.
