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.
ssm isn't a 'civil right' until a court or a vote says it is.
Neither is heterosexual marriage then, since i don't recall a court decision being handed down on that . The fact is all groups of people have the right to equal treatment even if the courts have no 'spelled it out' so to say.
I would like to see historical evidence of that. Find a link.
Here are plenty of links on the history of same sex marriage in human civilization. It was a common ancient practice but seems to have been villanized when the Abrahamic religions began to take over large areas and began to have a stronger influence on the rest of the world.
Surprisingly, I agree with you 100%, Ed. When gay people pull out the "black card" to help prove their position, I find it distasteful.
Honestly, it gives off a "Black people, who were relegated to the status of second-class citizens, get to do this...so surely we (white) gays should get to do it too". Nevermind that it's pointed out that the issue was RACE and NOT a redefinition of marriage (between a man and a woman).
Again, extremely distasteful and it just proves that they have no independent leg to stand on.
Love who you want, but don't discover this phony new-found kinship with black people when it suits your agenda.
In reference to the bolded part -
What? Why on Earth would you assume that only white gays feel this way and not any of the minority homosexuals (to include blacks) don't share that opinion?
The reason they draw parallels is pretty obvious and, IMO, pretty accurate.
In both cases the people in question were being denied access to marry who they loved based on an attribute that they, ostensibly, had no control over. Moreover, there was no solid legal basis to deny it to the parties in question, other than majority "didn't like the idea".
ssm isn't a 'civil right' until a court or a vote says it is.
Equal protection under the law is, however. And denying someone equal protection, based solely on the sexes of the two people involved, is pretty obviously sexual discrimination. Sex is a protected class, afterall.
"The right wing, the Christian right, has done a good job of building these organizations of accountability, much better than the left or progressive forces have. But it's always easier to organize around intolerance, narrow-mindedness, and false nostalgia. And they also have hijacked the higher moral ground with this language of family values and moral responsibility."
Equal protection under the law is, however. And denying someone equal protection, based solely on the sexes of the two people involved, is pretty obviously sexual discrimination. Sex is a protected class, afterall.
You're getting too complicated.
By definition, social conservatives don't like to look beyond what's good for them and theirs.
Anything that gets in the way of their myopic worldview ... such as the silly "Constitution" or "Court" or "Rights" isn't within their realm of understanding.
Gays usurping "marriage" is not a civil right. In CA the gays have all the benefits bestowed on married couples through civil unions.
Really? My partner of 5+ years is a U.S. Citizen, I am not. If we have the same rights and benefits of heterosexual couples, why can he not sponsor me for permanent residency in the U.S.? He can't because the benefits are not equal.
When 2 different classes are not treated equal in all aspects, there is no equality. And sorry, separate but equal as in civil unions is not equality.
I maintain that the government needs to get out the marriage business completely. Everyone can have a civil union, if you want a formal church wedding then do it. No church should be forced to marry someone they don't want to, and likewise the government should have no say in whether or not 2 consenting adults join together.
The CA court ruled same-gender marriages were legal in CA based on the CA constitution, prior to Prop 8. The CA court also ruled the marriages performed after its ruling and prior to Prop 8 remain legal marriages. Which setup the so far successful argument in multiple Federal courts that to now target a specific group in order to take away their rights (which CA court already established that they had) is a violation of the Federal equal protection clause.
Equal protection under the law is, however. And denying someone equal protection, based solely on the sexes of the two people involved, is pretty obviously sexual discrimination. Sex is a protected class, afterall.
To my knowledge, laws against sex discrimination refer to male vs female discrimination. Other laws apply to sexual orientation, and again to my knowledge, federal laws don't apply, nor do laws in most states.
I'd say DOMA, until it's ruled unconstitutional, is pretty good evidence that ssm isn't Now a 'civil' right. Add to DOMA, court cases that conflict with the 9th circuit and the statement that ssm Is a civil right amounts to hopeful thinking.
To my knowledge, laws against sex discrimination refer to male vs female discrimination...
Is not one of the two people involved being discriminated against simply because they are male or female? To my knowledge sexual discrimination refers to being discriminated against based SOLELY on the sex of the person involved. That is precisely what's happening here. No?
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.
. The fact is all groups of people have the right to equal treatment even if the courts have no 'spelled it out' so to say.
