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.
The discrimination of not allowing two people to enter into contract based upon the gender of the persons involved.
[/feeding the troll]
so it's not about gay rights then? The OP mentioned discrimination against gay people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strel
Still engaging in this fiction, I see.
You never answered my question.
Why do you think that even the attorney's for your side of this issue don't make this argument?
I mean, if it is such a compelling legal argument, why doesn't it show up in these cases?
Can you guess?
I have no idea why the attorneys don't make the argument, I honestly don't care.
Can you show me where anyone is being discriminated against based on their sexual preference? Please answer that question or just admit you have no argument.
so it's not about gay rights then? The OP mentioned discrimination against gay people.
I have no idea why the attorneys don't make the argument, I honestly don't care.
Can you show me where anyone is being discriminated against based on their sexual preference? Please answer that question or just admit you have no argument.
I would suggest you acquaint yourself with the ruling of the U.S District Court in California which last year struck down Proposition 8 in California. That was actually the ruling the signaled the beginning of the end of just about all the laws that prohibit same-sex marriage in America.
United States District Court of Northern California Propostion 8 Ruling (http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/acrobat/2010/08/04/Prop-8-Ruling-FINAL.pdf - broken link)
Quote:
Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in
singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license.
Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than
enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that oppositesex
couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California
has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and
because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its
constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis,
the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.
The groundwork for legalizing same-sex marriage has been laid. No state has an intrerest in discriminating between gay man and lesbians and ANY LAW DOING SO prevents a state from fulfilling it's obligation in terms of the due process clauses and the equal protection clauses. Thus they are UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
What you have to realize is the way this case has been presented on terms of prohibition of same-sex couples being discriminatory and violation of a person's constitutional rights from a legal standpoint it's going to be difficult to overturn.
so it's not about gay rights then? The OP mentioned discrimination against gay people.
I have no idea why the attorneys don't make the argument, I honestly don't care.
Can you show me where anyone is being discriminated against based on their sexual preference? Please answer that question or just admit you have no argument.
It's obvious you don't know nor do you care. So let me enlighten you.
From a legal perspective, and especially in the context of equal protection, your argument is retarded.
It shows that you do not understand how equal protection works, you don't even grasp what the phrase means.
I've already posted the explanation in many threads on this topic, and you have read them. Any failure to understand is entirely on your part, and I expect, entirely willful. You have been advised to read and learn about how the courts handle this issue.
You either have not done so, or you did and found out how wrong you were, and just won't admit it. This "sound-bite' argument of yours not only gets no traction in the courts...
It's obvious you don't know nor do you care. So let me enlighten you.
From a legal perspective, and especially in the context of equal protection, your argument is retarded.
It shows that you do not understand how equal protection works, you don't even grasp what the phrase means.
I've already posted the explanation in many threads on this topic, and you have read them. Any failure to understand is entirely on your part, and I expect, entirely willful.
Once again.
Exactly HOW are gay people being discriminated against?
Stop being so evasive and just answer the stupid question. If you can.
Exactly HOW are gay people being discriminated against?
Stop being so evasive and just answer the stupid question.
Not allowing two people to sign a contract based upon the sex of the people affects everyone.
However, it disproportionally affects homosexuals, it is, therefore, discriminatory.
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.
