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.
It doesn't matter what the majority approve of in this case: the majority's opinion does not trump equal protection clause: an inalienable right in the constitution.
Consider a women business owner in New Hampshire who is married to a man who works for her business. One the the civil rights she gets from her marriage is that she doesn't have to pay unemployment insurance tax on her husband's wages.
Now consider a woman business owner in New Hampshire who is married to a woman who works for her business. No go on that tax break. Despite being married, she has to pay unemployment insurance tax on her wife's wages because homosexuals are banned by law from accessing that civil right.
Here's another one:
Consider an Iowan man who marries a woman from France. One of the civil rights he gets with his civil marriage is that his foreign French wife gets to come and live with him in American (and work here if she wants) under a spousal immigration visa.
Now consider an Iowan man who marries a man from France. No go on being able to live together. His spouse is not allowed to get a spousal immigration visa because homosexuals are banned by law from accessing that civil right.
Here's another:
Consider a male military member from Vermont who marries a women. Two of the civil rights he gets with his civil marriage is that he gets paid more in the form of a family housing allowance and his wife gets to shop at the base commissary.
Now consider a male military member from Vermont who marries a man. No go on those either. He does not get an increased family housing allowance and his husband cannot shop at the base commissary because homosexuals are banned by law from accessing those civil rights.
I've given you 3 concrete examples (I could give you 100 more). Will you stop asking the question now?
Male person marries female person.
That "right" isn't denied,no matter who you are.
No matter how many concrete examples you give, the only one that counts is the fact the only thing denied is the marriage of a same sex partner and benefits. Not the marriage of an opposite sex partner, whether you are straight OR gay.
BTW I am for a civil union with all the rights and responsibilities of a married couple.
It doesn't matter what the majority approve of in this case: the majority's opinion does not trump equal protection clause: an inalienable right in the constitution.
A right that some here seem to think does not exist.
But it matters not, because the judges deciding these cases do.
No matter how many concrete examples you give, the only one that counts is the fact the only thing denied is the marriage of a same sex partner and benefits. Not the marriage of an opposite sex partner, whether you are straight OR gay.
Another one that doesn't understand the 14th amendment.
No matter how many concrete examples you give, the only one that counts is the fact the only thing denied is the marriage of a same sex partner and benefits. Not the marriage of an opposite sex partner, whether you are straight OR gay.
BTW I am for a civil union with all the rights and responsibilities of a married couple.
You're conflating religious and civil marriage. They are completely separate and unrelated things.
Newflash - a civil marriage and a civil union are EXACTLY the same thing. I don't care what the hell it's called - civil union, civil marriage, civil cohabitation, civil shacking up civil klakdjfackdnafdiu. I just want access to the same civil rights as heterosexuals. The easiest way to remedy the invidious discrimination would to repeal the recent laws of this nation that ban homosexuals from accessing civil marriage contracts and the civil rights they confer.
Actually, what the 14th Amendment says is that the State will not "...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Under what existing law have you been denied its protection?
There is nothing that says new laws need to be created for your protection, only that your protection under existing law is guaranteed to be equally applied by the state.
I could beleive the outcome a little easier if a sensable number of people had been polled. That plus there are ways of asking questions to get a desirable answer. There is a strong possibility if you were to dig deeper many of those who voted for same sex marriage actually were thinking equal rights for everyone and same sex unions.
The amount being polled meets Scientific polling standards. The number being polled is also similar to the amount polled in polls a few years ago when it showed the majority of people against gay marriage. To top that off we are now seeing multiple polls showing support for gay marriage.
Actually, what the 14th Amendment says is that the State will not "...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."Under what existing law have you been denied its protection?
There is nothing that says new laws need to be created for your protection, only that your protection under existing law is guaranteed to be equally applied by the state.
DOMA, 40 or so state laws that ban homosexuals from accessing the civil rights of a civil marriage contract. Just those.
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.
how about -
