Gay Rights are Not Civil Rights

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

Wow, I just lost the last shred of respect I had remaining for the United States.

---

Oh well that changes everything.

I'll have a footlong GBLT, please. lawl

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

That's funny, because I was actually pleased to see that my government chose not to subordinate our founding document to some feel good fluff pumped out by the UN. :beam:

---

you mean just like like a document written by a bunch of slave owners declaring how everyone was free and had inalienable rights???....I see what you did there :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronin

you mean just like like a document written by a bunch of slave owners declaring how everyone was free and had inalienable rights???....I see what you did there :laugh4:

---

Irrelevant. The slavery part was addressed via amendment. The Constitution is flexible that way.

Why oh why does the slave trade always come into these arguments over gay rights? :wall:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GeneralHankerchief

Irrelevant. The slavery part was addressed via amendment. The Constitution is flexible that way.

---

so if it needed amendment that means it was not perfect???? I´m shocked....:laugh4: you mean those men didn´t know what the law needed to be for ever and ever??

the things one learns each day :coffeenews:

that might just mean it needs another amendment to give full rights to gays....or better yet....how about witting another one in XXI century English so it's clear about what the hell it means?? :deal2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronin

so if it needed amendment that means it was not perfect???? I´m shocked....:laugh4: you mean those men didn´t know what the law needed to be for ever and ever??

the things one learns each day :coffeenews:

that might just mean it needs another amendment to give full rights to gays....or better yet....how about witting another one in XXI century English so it's clear about what the hell it means?? :deal2:

---

You dont understand what this is about. To amend the constitution the legislature needs to be used that isnt happening and THAT is the problem

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronin

so if it needed amendment that means it was not perfect???? I´m shocked....:laugh4: you mean those men didn´t know what the law needed to be for ever and ever??

the things one learns each day :coffeenews:

that might just mean it needs another amendment to give full rights to gays....or better yet....how about witting another one in XXI century English so it's clear about what the hell it means?? :deal2:

---

Exactly. A Constitutional amendment is exactly what's needed. The Founders saw this problem happening and they devised a way to get around it.

An Amendment is and always has been the proper way to change the law when change has been required - NOT judges arbitrarily deciding it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GeneralHankerchief

An Amendment is and always has been the proper way to change the law when change has been required - NOT judges arbitrarily deciding it.

---

:bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

and you missed the point of my post.

---

That would be a nice role-reversal.

The 14th amendment deems the restriction of marriage to a man and a woman unconstitutional. By federal law, no state is permitted to prevent gay marriage.

The discrimination is not between gay and straight, but between male and female. Citizen X can not be disallowed to marry citizen Y, whereas it is allowed citizen Z, simply on the basis of sex. No more than that this distinction can be made on race.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

I'm not blaming Obama, but I will not grant the United States as a country my respect until the above happens.

---

The UN Declaration of Human Rights is not formally legally binding in Australia either. Nor, for that matter, in France.

However, shiny enlightened Republics like France and the US have a Bill of Rights or a 'Déclaration des droits de l'Homme et du citoyen' (Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen). This unlike monarchies like the UK and Australia, which have to make do with customary laws and vague Medieval charters like Magna Carta and the sort, regulating the amount of rabbits and peasants noblemen can shoot on Thursdays or what have you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

But again, it's pretty irrelevant since no one is denying anyone the ability to get married.

---

:smash:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

That would be a nice role-reversal.

---

I understand you. I think you are very misguided but I understand you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

The 14th amendment deems the restriction of marriage to a man and a woman unconstitutional. By federal law, no state is permitted to prevent gay marriage.

---

How do you figure?

Louis the 14th amendment says nothing about marriage. This is the closest it comes.

Quote:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

The UN Declaration of Human Rights is not formally legally binding in Australia either. Nor, for that matter, in France.

---

We signed it, we have a responsibility to follow through with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

However, shiny enlightened Republics like France and the US have a Bill of Rights or a 'Déclaration des droits de l'Homme et du citoyen' (Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen). This unlike monarchies like the UK and Australia, which have to make do with customary laws and vague Medieval charters like Magna Carta and the sort, regulating the amount of rabbits and peasants noblemen can shoot on Thursdays or what have you.

---

I support an Australian Bill or Rights, and IIRC so do most Australians.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

How do you figure?

---

Probably from this:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Amendment XIV, Section I

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

Probably from this:

---

Everyone is equal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Everyone is equal.

---

True, every individual is equal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

How do you figure?

---

Via the way of the Civil Rights movement and the subsequent explanation that has been given to the 14th: the extension of all privileges and immunities of citizenship to all.
This includes the right not to discriminate between male and female. If a female is allowed to marry X, then this right must be extended to all other citizens, and can not be limited to persons of a required race, gender, born / naturalised or any other distinction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Via the way of the Civil Rights movement and the explanation that has been given to the 14th: the extension of all privileges and immunities of citizenship to all.
This includes the right not to discriminate between male and female. If a female is allowed to marry X, then this right must be extended to all other citizens, and can not be limited to persons of a required race, gender, born / naturalised or any other distinction.

---

Then why has no one used the 14th in support of gay marriage or otherwise at a Fed level. Hell they used it for Roe V Wade. Where once again it has no legal precedence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Then why has no one used the 14th in support of gay marriage or otherwise at a Fed level.

---

Because either I am much smarter or much stupider than they are.


Dang it. Can't even bluff my way into US constitutional Law 'round here. :wall:

*Sets off to search for a thread with a more easily impressionable crowd*

okay I have asked this question before and I will continue to ask it, since no one has answered it.

Exactly what individual right is being denied by the state formulating laws that define marriage as between a man and a women?

Exactly what individual right is being denied by the state for dening same sex marriage?

If the process of a state sanction marriage requires one to pay a fee for a license, it means its a contractual relationship, how does the regulation of marriage differ from the driving priveledge granted to individuals by the state?

And as a said note I find the arguement that those against same-sex marriage are homophoic a very funny arguement since it often comes without addressing the very questions I have asked.


Now as for allowing same-sex marriage I am all for allowing same-sex marriage if they follow the constitutional process that each state has regarding making laws for that state. Which Bill Clinton addressed with his Defense of Marriage Act, so until one can adequately demonstrate or argue how individual rights are being denied - I find that the idea must follow the process established in each state, and the courts should not rule on the issue unless the current law violates the established constitution of that state.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

okay I have asked this question before and I will continue to ask it, since no one has answered it.

Exactly what individual right is being denied by the state formulating laws that define marriage as between a man and a women?

Exactly what individual right is being denied by the state for dening same sex marriage?

If the process of a state sanction marriage requires one to pay a fee for a license, it means its a contractual relationship, how does the regulation of marriage differ from the driving priveledge granted to individuals by the state?

And as a said note I find the arguement that those against same-sex marriage are homophoic a very funny arguement since it often comes without addressing the very questions I have asked.


Now as for allowing same-sex marriage I am all for allowing same-sex marriage if they follow the constitutional process that each state has regarding making laws for that state. Which Bill Clinton addressed with his Defense of Marriage Act, so until one can adequately demonstrate or argue how individual rights are being denied - I find that the idea must follow the process established in each state, and the courts should not rule on the issue unless the current law violates the established constitution of that state.

---

This, This is exactly how I feel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Exactly what individual right is being denied by the state formulating laws that define marriage as between a man and a women?

Exactly what individual right is being denied by the state for dening same sex marriage?

---

1 - The right to non-discrimination between male and female.

2 - The same.

The key to solving US gay marriage - and if I hurry up I can do it and become a new civil rights hero and then fulfill my life's ambition of becoming US president - is to see that it is not about gay rights, but about gender equality. It is not a person's sexual preference that disqualifies somebody from being eligable to marry somebody, burt his or her gender. And gender discrimination has long been deemed unconstitutional. The legal framework is there, all it takes is this shift from 'gay rights' to gender equality.

This thread is called Gay Rights. This is wrong. This is about Sex Rights.

~+~+~+~<()>~+~+~+~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

We signed it, we have a responsibility to follow through with it.

I support an Australian Bill or Rights, and IIRC so do most Australians.

---

The signing of the UN DoHR is a statement of intent indeed.

To be honest, I doubt whether Australian law conflicts in any meaningful way with the UNDoHR.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat;2059849

1 - The right to non-discrimination between male and female.

2 - The same.

The key to solving US gay marriage - and if I hurry up I can do it and become a new civil rights hero and then fulfill my life's ambition of becoming US president - is to see that it is not about gay rights, but about gender equality. It is not a person's sexual preference that disqualifies somebody from being eligable to marry somebody, burt his or her gender. And gender discrimination has long been deemed unconstitutional. The legal framework is there, all it takes is this shift from 'gay rights' to gender equality.

This thread is called Gay Rights. This is wrong. This is about Sex Rights.
.

---

So your position is it should be constitutionally legal because the 14th amendment encompasses gender rights as well?

Oh and you cant be president you aint from round here boi.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

1 - The right to non-discrimination between male and female.

---

How is defining something that is a state sanction event that requires a licence discrimination? For instance to add to the discussion only - age is also used as a defining definition for when one is allowed to partake in a state sanctioned priveledge such as driving (16 for most states) drinking (21 in the US), Hunting license, (hunter safety requirment below a certain age) and a fundmental right of voting is also defined by constitutional amendment. So there is system established that does allow the state to define how priveledges are awarded to the people.

Your on a good track on pointing out a possible dening of a right.

Quote:

---

2 - The same.

---

I would disagree that your point constitutes a violation of an individual right.

Quote:

---

The key to solving US gay marriage - and if I hurry up I can do it and become a new civil rights hero and then fulfill my life's ambition of becoming US president - is to see that it is not about gay rights, but about gender equality. It is not a person's sexual preference that disqualifies somebody from being eligable to marry somebody, burt his or her gender. And gender discrimination has long been deemed unconstitutional. The legal framework is there, all it takes is this shift from 'gay rights' to gender equality.

---

Interesting arguement that almost works - except for the government does place restriction and limitations on gender - ie military service for examble. I could be wrong but up to 2000, the United States Army did not allow women into the combat arms branches, minus two very small Field Artillery MOS dealing with Missles and Cannon Repair.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Oh and you cant be president you aint from round here boi.

---

Obama will change that. Before people discover that those whispered rumours about his real place of birth turn out to have been true all along.

Then we take over.


How come we have clashed swords five thousand times, and not once have you called me 'boy'. Yet, in a thread about the Civil Rights movement you do? Freudian associations? A slip of your Southern Mind? ~;)

Is it cause I is Black?

Just so we're clear:

Quote:

---

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 believe this is what we are referring to in the 14th Amendment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Obama will change that. Before people discover that those whispered rumours about his real place of birth turn out to have been true all along.

Then we take over.


How come we have clashed swords five thousand times, and not once have you called me 'boy'. Yet, in a thread about the Civil Rights movement you do? Freudian associations? A slip of your Southern Mind? ~;)

Is it cause I is Black?

---

Listen here boy I is a Texan and a Texan I shall be till I die. All the politeness of a Southern gentleman but none of the de masculinity. We are the true peak of evolution

You on the other hand are a Frenchman and for that I sympathize. It must be hard eating frogs and snails all the while never getting you're republic right. you could always emigrate. I could set you up with a nice yellow rose :kiss:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

We are the true peak of evolution

---

LOL.