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.
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
Loving verses Virginia was about segregation, it was about segregation because of color not because it violated the gender requirement which is a violation of the 14th amendment, nothing to do with same sex marriage.....TRY AGAIN!
Banning same sex couples is the same as banning interracial marriage. The excuses are the same. There is no reason to ban same sex couples from marrying that is not related to bigotry, a bible or hate. Which one is your excuse? The laws governing marriage and the rights that are associated with marriage have no gender requirements or reproduction requirements. All the bans that were instituted into state constitutions violate the 14th and its promise of equal representation to all citizens and gays are citizens too. There was no legitimate reason to ban interracial marriage and there is no legitimate reason to ban same sex marriage. Try again, you fail.
is segregation based on color against the constitution YES or NO? ....the core of the Loving v. Virginia case wasn't about marriage , it was about SEGREGATION. Lovin v Virginia could have been about employment, education, housing, public transportation and it would have ended the same in the courts because it was about segregation not sexual orientation.
Jesus, know the difference!
Loving v. Virginia was about the Equal Protection Clause in the context of state marriage laws (laws which, despite what you said earlier, most certainly do fall under 14th Amendment scrutiny). I've read the case many times, I have a memory of studying it in law school. I think I know what it's about.
Why “Sexual Orientation” is Not a Protected Nondiscrimination Class
The North Carolina State Bar recently struck down changes to the North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct that would have included “sexual orientation” in the list of protected classes. The proposed amendment stated that lawyers should not discriminate against anyone on the basis of race, gender, age or other protected status or personal characteristic. Included next to the traditional protected classes was “sexual orientation.”
For the rules to have included a “sexual orientation” class to a general list of protections would have directly attacked First Amendment rights and the legally-protected right for attorney autonomy.
The Ethics Committee voted to withdraw the recommended changes July 23, proving a major success for attorneys in North Carolina and a set back to the gay movement. However, many other organizations are still subject to advocates seeking a “sexual orientation” nondiscrimination class and should be aware of why it is not a protected class.
According to the Human Rights Education Associates, an international non-government human rights organization, sexual orientation is defined as one’s “emotional, romantic, and sexual attraction to another person,” referring specifically to feelings and self-concept. To agree that sexual orientation is a nondiscrimination class is to presuppose that the parties involved are aware, and therefore prejudiced against another’s sexual orientation.
“Sexual orientation” is not an innate, indisputable characteristic, like race, nationality or sex, and instead encapsulates a concept based on changing personas and personal sexual decisions. The United States Supreme Court grants protected status to immutable characteristics, present from birth and has not recognized “sexual orientation” as a protected class. Therefore, to include sexual orientation is nontraditional as it compares to other nondiscrimination provisions. In including this protected class, the North Carolina State Bar would have assumed that every person is born with an inherent sexual orientation, a fact that is not widely accepted or scientifically proven.
The National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) acknowledges the absence of a biological link to homosexual behavior and instead offers studies to show that homosexuality is a combination of social, psychological and biological factors. The American Psychological Association confirms that “sexual orientation is distinct from other components of sex and gender… and is defined in terms of relationships with others.” Dr. Dennis McFadden, a University of Texas neuroscientist, clarifies: “Any human behavior is going to be the result of complex intermingling of genetics and environment.”
The Ethics Committee struck down the inclusion most likely due to the precedent set by the 1995 United States Supreme Court case, Hurley v. Irish American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc. The case explains: “One important manifestation of the principle of free speech is that one who chooses to speak may also decide what not to say.” When applied, a “sexual orientation” protection class would have violated the constitutional protection against compelled speech given to private individuals. The well-established rule against compelled speech and expression prohibits the government from compelling an individual- including an attorney- to express or affirm a message in conflict with his or her private beliefs. If the North Carolina State Bar protected this class, attorneys would have been forced to take cases contrary to their beliefs and therefore, violate expressive First Amendment rights.
A sexual orientation nondiscrimination class would have threatened attorney autonomy as outlined in the Rules of Professional Responsibility. Under these guidelines attorneys are legally allowed to accept or deny a client’s case, just as a private business owner. Should an attorney disagree or find conflict with, a potential client’s case, a sexual orientation protected class would prevent the attorney from refusing to represent the client because his decision might be deemed to have “been influenced by considerations of sexual orientation.” Let me paint you the picture. Suppose a same-sex couple approaches a family law attorney about adopting a child. Regardless of the attorney’s own privately held beliefs, under this provision, the attorney would have been forced to accept the case in fear that his refusal would constitute “sexual orientation” discrimination.
North Carolina was not the only state to consider including “sexual orientation” in the list of protected nondiscrimination classes. In December 2008 the Arizona State Bar proposed adding a “sexual orientation” clause to the Arizona State Bar Oath of Admission. After hearing a month of voiced and written resistance from attorneys and the community, the Arizona State Bar struck down the inclusion. Opposition raised similar critical constitutional arguments including the infringement of First Amendment rights, particularity Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Conscience.
The North Carolina State Bar did reject the proposed provision because it threatened constitutional protected speech and established legal norms. Other similar organizations need to be aware of the legal consequences of including a sexual orientation nondiscrimination class and they too should reject the nontraditional class.
is segregation based on color against the constitution YES or NO? ....the core of the Loving v. Virginia case wasn't about marriage , it was about SEGREGATION. Lovin v Virginia could have been about employment, education, housing, public transportation and it would have ended the same in the courts because it was about segregation not sexual orientation.
Jesus, know the difference!
WRONG again. It was about marriage. Virginia stated that every citizen in its state had the same right, the right to marry a person of their own race and since a black man could only marry a black woman and white man could only marry a white woman and so on, that it was equal. It was not and the bans on same sex marriage are just as flawed in that they ban only same sex marriage, they ban straight people from marrying a same sex person as well as same sex couples marrying. Telling a gay man that he can marry a woman is the same as telling a black man that he can marry a black woman only. If you cannot see that, then you are blind.
Banning same sex couples is the same as banning interracial marriage. The excuses are the same. There is no reason to ban same sex couples from marrying that is not related to bigotry, a bible or hate. Which one is your excuse? The laws governing marriage and the rights that are associated with marriage have no gender requirements or reproduction requirements. All the bans that were instituted into state constitutions violate the 14th and its promise of equal representation to all citizens and gays are citizens too. There was no legitimate reason to ban interracial marriage and there is no legitimate reason to ban same sex marriage. Try again, you fail.
who is banning same sex couples????? I think you can do whatever you want in your home.
States can define marriage between 1 man and 1 woman requirement and age requirement or change it as they see fit.
My excuse is that is a state issue. If California wants to give marriage licenses to everybody including illegals if they want to and no restrictions or requirements that's their issue and the people of the state.
my issue is if you want to expand the 14th amendment to sexual orientation, do it constitutionally. Don't make shiat up because you feel is the "right" thing to do. Ratifying the Constitution and
Ratifying an Amendment.......LOOK IT UP HOW TO DO IT!
who is banning same sex couples????? I think you can do whatever you want in your home.
States can define marriage between 1 man and 1 woman requirement and age requirement or change it as they see fit.
My excuse is that is a state issue. If California wants to give marriage licenses to everybody including illegals if they want to and no restrictions or requirements that's their issue and the people of the state.
my issue is if you want to expand the 14th amendment to sexual orientation, do it constitutionally. Don't make shiat up because you feel is the "right" thing to do. Ratifying the Constitution and
Ratifying an Amendment.......LOOK IT UP HOW TO DO IT!
It is constitutional . Just because you don't think it is doesn't make it so .
I have a problem because you disagree with me and others?
It's not a problem of disagreement. It's about unsound logic. Your opinions are appalling, but you're of course entitled to them. You don't get your own facts, though.
Quote:
Loving v. Virginia was about racial segregation.....nothing to do with gay marriage or the definition of marriage...
And that's where you're factually wrong. Loving v. Virginia completely changed Virginia's legal definition of marriage.
WRONG again. It was about marriage. Virginia stated that every citizen in its state had the same right, the right to marry a person of their own race and since a black man could only marry a black woman and white man could only marry a white woman and so on, that it was equal. It was not and the bans on same sex marriage are just as flawed in that they ban only same sex marriage, they ban straight people from marrying a same sex person as well as same sex couples marrying. Telling a gay man that he can marry a woman is the same as telling a black man that he can marry a black woman only. If you cannot see that, then you are blind.
Jesus are you this dense? Lovin vs Virginia was a segregation case...it had nothing to do about sexual orientation.
sexual orientation is not protected under the 14th amendment.......try again!
who is banning same sex couples????? I think you can do whatever you want in your home.
States can define marriage between 1 man and 1 woman requirement and age requirement or change it as they see fit.
My excuse is that is a state issue. If California wants to give marriage licenses to everybody including illegals if they want to and no restrictions or requirements that's their issue and the people of the state.
my issue is if you want to expand the 14th amendment to sexual orientation, do it constitutionally. Don't make shiat up because you feel is the "right" thing to do. Ratifying the Constitution and
Ratifying an Amendment.......LOOK IT UP HOW TO DO IT!
I am not making anything up. AGAIN, since you have a problem understanding, the 14 assures equal application of the laws, banning same sex marriage is not equal application. It singles out homosexuals and bans them from marriage that all the rest of the population can partake of. Is that so difficult for you to understand? When it comes to Federal laws, the Feds trump the state laws. The Federal government recognizes same sex unions and interracial unions. Not one single state is allowed to reinstate their bans on interracial marriage, why should they be allowed to enact bans on same sex unions under any guise?
States can define marriage between 1 man and 1 woman requirement and age requirement or change it as they see fit.
Why can't states define the racial requirements of marriage as they see fit?
Quote:
My excuse is that is a state issue. If California wants to give marriage licenses to everybody including illegals if they want to and no restrictions or requirements that's their issue and the people of the state.
If it's a state issue, why can't California ban interracial marriages?
Quote:
my issue is if you want to expand the 14th amendment to sexual orientation, do it constitutionally. Don't make shiat up because you feel is the "right" thing to do. Ratifying the Constitution and
[b]Ratifying an Amendment.......LOOK IT UP HOW TO DO IT!
Huh? What about the 14th Amendment says to you it doesn't cover sexual orientation?
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
I just quoted the Privileges and Immunities, the Due Process, and the Equal Protection clauses. Again, how does that not cover sexual orientation? Perhaps you tell me exactly what groups it covers and what groups it doesn't cover.
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.
. Just because you don't think it is doesn't make it so 
.
