Gay Rights are Not Civil Rights

Lately there has been a surge in Gay rights are equal to civil rights which is simply not true. First lets forget the fact that gays arent nearly subject to 1/100000000 of the prejudice that blacks were. There isn't a constitutional precedence for it either and to say there is one means you take such a literal meaning interpretation of the constitution that you make the legislative branch utterly useless. Here are some of the arguments I have heard

So you only think the constitutions laws are the ones your republic can have?

Well no thats why we have congress but I can see why you would think that as they are always more busy with naming parks than tackiling tough issues

BUT ITS WRONG OH SO VERY WRONG

Well that maybe however the courts job is not to make law only to interpret the thing so no matter how "wrong" something may be it does not give the courts the right to project there on view of morality on the case (IE Roe V Wade)


Dred Scott V Sanford (1857)

The judgement is as folllows

Quote:

---

States do not have the right to claim an individual’s property that was fairly theirs in another state. Property cannot cease to exist as a result of changing jurisdiction. The majority decision held that Africans residing in America, whether free or slave, could not become United States citizens and the plaintiff therefore lacked the capacity to file a lawsuit. Furthermore, the parts of the Missouri Compromise creating free territories were unconstitutional because Congress had no authority to abolish slavery in federal territories. Judgment of Circuit Court for the District of Missouri reversed and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

---

Now slavery is a wrong however in this case the court ruled right. The constitution says nothing about slavery and there were laws that counted slaves as property. So therefore the court made the right decision here despite the fact it was "wrong"

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

Now this is a legal ruling due to the fact that Plessy only used the 14th amendment and did not try to utilize other parts of the constitution. the 14th amendment says nothing about everyone being integrated only that they be equal. If he had pointed out that the facilities were "separate but equal in name only" then they would've had a case but they didnt and the civil rights movement shot itself in the foot.

Brown v. Board of education (1954)

This is the ruling that overturned Plessy and to me is an illegal ruling. I think the fact that even after this was ruled there are still white and black schools is a testament to this. School segregation was on its way out. The civil rights movement was getting up (and for the most part would go through the right channels with the civil rights act of 1964 which I consider a hallmark in Americas law processing) The EPA says nothing about integration just equality. With this ruling one could argue that the public school system today is a racist classist institution granted the supreme court would knock it down however at that point they would be more in line with a Plessy ruling than with a Brown one. Like in Plessy the courts were being used as a legislative branch only this time it worked.

In todays say in age the gay movement is trying this same route and it is only turning people off. Not to mention it is straight up illegal as the constitution (cali or otherwise) says nothing about marriage to begin with. They have even less precedent than the civil rights movement.

For the record I'm not a bigot or a homophobe I merley want my republic to stay just that. No matter how wrong people may perceive it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

For the record I'm not a bigot or a homophobe...

---

Please see me after class.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrossLOPER

Please see me after class.

---

So instead if debating merit you do this? Do you know how the American law process operates? Now I very well maybe wrong in fact I'm really only posting this to create discussion about constitutionality as I am well aware that this is a very conservative opinion and I am open to other opinions. Im guessing you just read the title/?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

the gay movement is trying this same route and it is only turning people off. Not to mention it is straight

---

I see. :book:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

I see. :book:

---

? I have stated many times I am a proponent for gay rights and that marrige should be off the books. If the best you can do is paint me as a homophobe then I weep for my republic as its now ruled by people who don't know how to run it :shame:

Quote:

---

the gay movement is trying this same route and it is only turning people off. Not to mention itis straight

---

~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

~;)

---

Ok Freud disicet me

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

You big tease :filrt:

So can no one argue on constitutional grounds? I guess once your religious straw-men and emotional appeals are gone you have no argument.

It doesn't matter if the Constitution says nothing specific about it - it should be allowed, end of story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

It doesn't matter if the Constitution says nothing specific about it - it should be allowed, end of story.

---

And you're willing to allow courts to supersede legislature? even if its against the majorities wishes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

And you're willing to allow courts to supersede legislature? even if its against the majorities wishes?

---

First off - read my post again, where did I ever say that?

Secondly - yes I have no problem with that as long as the Constitutional argument is on the court's side. In a case where a minority (In this case the LGBT movement) is having their rights stripped from them it is absolutely necessary to consult the Constitution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

It doesn't matter if the Constitution says nothing specific about it - it should be allowed, end of story.

---

If the Constitution says nothing about it, then by rule it is delegated to the states.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GeneralHankerchief

If the Constitution says nothing about it, then by rule it is delegated to the states.

---

And I have no problem with that for your crazy country...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

First off - read my post again, where did I ever say that?

Secondly - yes I have no problem with that as long as the Constitutional argument is on the court's side. In a case where a minority (In this case the LGBT movement) is having their rights stripped from them it is absolutely necessary to consult the Constitution.

---

You didnt I asked you a question

The constitution is not on there side and to say it is would be circumventing process and they are having no rights "stripped" they never had them to begin with.

A) Define "gay rights".

Using that term already implies discrimination.

B) As for discrimination:

Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

Quote:

---

Article 1.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights

(...)

Article 7.
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law.

---

Now, I'll assume you're talking about gays being allowed to marry and I assume we all agree that gays are human beings.

Since non-discrimination is the rule, then not allowing gays to marry is an exception of that rule.

The question should thus not be "Why would gays be allowed to marry", but should be: "Why would gays not be allowed to marry?"

Answer that question first and then we can continue to discuss.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

And I have no problem with that for your crazy country...

---

You may call it crazy, but so far Constitutional adherence has been (rightfully) followed. If we don't, then the entire sanctity of the document, the foundation upon which America is literally built, is at risk. There are other, legal ways of challenging social injustices that do not threaten to tear apart the established procedure. This has been followed in the past up until recent decades, and that's where a lot of problems start happening.

Wrong argument Andres, I tried it before and Strike says the document is irrelevant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike

The constitution is not on there side and to say it is would be circumventing process and they are having no rights "stripped" they never had them to begin with.

---

What you are describing is a privilege. Rights aren't granted - they are yours from birth because you are a HUMAN BEING

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

A) Define "gay rights".

Using that term already implies discrimination.

B) As for discrimination:

Universal Declaration of Human Rights:



Now, I'll assume you're talking about gays being allowed to marry and I assume we all agree that gays are human beings.

Since non-discrimination is the rule, then not allowing gays to marry is an exception of that rule.

The question should thus not be "Why would gays be allowed to marry", but should be: "Why would gays not be allowed to marry?"

Answer that question first and then we can continue to discuss.

---

That document holds no weight in my country.

I have said many times before that marriage should be off the books entirely. This thread is about the constitution and its place in todays government. I choose the LGBT movement because it gets the most rise out of people and its when they become the most self richoues (To be fair I could've chosen abortion to) I figured many of you would know my postions by now but I was mistaken.

@countarch Rights are only yours if you can defend them which is why this argument is so important.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

That document holds no weight in my country.

---

Your country signed it, ergo it holds weight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

@countarch Rights are only yours if you can defend them which is why this argument is so important.

---

What are you talking about? Why do rights need to be defended to exist? I can't defend my right to being alive - but I have it...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

Your country signed it, ergo it holds weight.

What are you talking about? Why do rights need to be defended to exist? I can't defend my right to being alive - but I have it...

---

The constitution is the supreme law of the land.

Your "rights" only go so far as people in power deem them to. Thats why every time a judge hands down a decision like this the constitution loses a little more power everyone (even the gays) loses a little more freedom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

The constitution is the supreme law of the land.

Your "rights" only go so far as people in power deem them to. Thats why every time a judge hands down a decision like this the constitution loses a little more power everyone (even the gays) loses a little more freedom.

---

Allow me to channel my inner Tribesman:

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

The idea that you lose freedom because other people have freedoms they were born with recognised is utterly ludicrous... completely and utterly ludicrous....
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

Your country signed it, ergo it holds weight.

---

Not really.

Quote:

---

The United States long resisted ratification. This was motivated by popular American dislike for the UN, but also out of a fear that the covenant's anti-death-penalty language could be used by domestic anti-death-penalty activists to litigate against capital punishment. The United States Senate ratified the ICCPR in 1992, with a number of reservations, understandings, and declarations; with so many, in fact, that its implementation has little domestic effect.[3] In particular, the Senate declared in 138 Cong. Rec. S4781-84 (1992) that "the provisions of Article 1 through 27 of the Covenant are not self-executing", and in S. Exec. Rep., No. 102-23 (1992) stated that the declaration was meant to "clarify that the Covenant will not create a private cause of action in U.S. Courts."

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Not really.

---

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

But Obama got elected. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GeneralHankerchief

But Obama got elected. :laugh4:

---

He ain't getting that part of my respect back until he removes the reservations or signs a new treaty without reservations.

Why do you blame Obama for the Senate's hesitancy to sign the treaty? It was in 1992; he had nothing to do with its passage or gutting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GeneralHankerchief

Why do you blame Obama for the Senate's hesitancy to sign the treaty? It was in 1992; he had nothing to do with its passage or gutting.

---

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

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.

---

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:

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:

---

I had a feeling we might see the UN differently :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

Allow me to channel my inner Tribesman:

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

The idea that you lose freedom because other people have freedoms they were born with recognised is utterly ludicrous... completely and utterly ludicrous....
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

---

and you missed the point of my post.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GeneralHankerchief

The Constitution is flexible that way.

---

You'll find the gays are too. :wink2:

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.

---

The UK actually has two, the Human Rights Act, based on the European Convention on Human Rights, and the Equality Act. Both offer, in my opinion at least the same, and in some cases more protection than the US Bill of Rights. Both are subject to the whims of government in power, since both can be circumvented by the needs of national security for example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SwedishFish

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;

---

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

---

A literal interpretation of this clause would support your case that to deny same sex marriage is to deny privilege.

However, are you aware that such an interpretation would, in all likelihood, remove any and all constraints imposed on marriage by any state (providing the participants are mentally competent adult citizens). Thus, no restrictions against group marriage, incestual marriage, etc.

Is this a worthwhile approach?

How I never tire of the slippery slope argument...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

How I never tire of the slippery slope argument...

---

Thats what these kind of rulings lead to dundee. You either go through the legislature or you open a pandoras box quit crying and write a bill like everyone else before you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Thats what these kind of rulings lead to dundee. You either go through the legislature or you open a pandoras box quit crying and write a bill like everyone else before you.

---

Then go through the Legislature. All I am saying is this - if the Legislature isn't going to ensure a basic human right is met, the other branches have to do it. That is the nature of checks and balances.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

Then go through the Legislature. All I am saying is this - if the Legislature isn't going to ensure a basic human right is met, the other branches have to do it. That is the nature of checks and balances.

---

If we openly disregard the Constitution and the procedures it sets out, it had better not be done on an issue as trivial as gay marriage. The legislature makes the laws, period. I'm not about to stake the very legal foundation this country is built upon unless the issue in question is incredibly dire. Gay marriage does not qualify.

Living in the US, it's not as easy for me to disregard the Constitution when it's convenient as it is for somebody across the globe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GeneralHankerchief

If we openly disregard the Constitution and the procedures it sets out, it had better not be done on an issue as trivial as gay marriage. The legislature makes the laws, period. I'm not about to stake the very legal foundation this country is built upon unless the issue in question is incredibly dire. Gay marriage does not qualify.

---

Then we have different priorities. I don't see the point in having a Constitution and a Bill of Rights when these will not guarantee basic human rights for everyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

Then we have different priorities. I don't see the point in having a Constitution and a Bill of Rights when these will not guarantee basic human rights for everyone.

---

You act like we keep gays in a hole. Its these kinds of outrageous accusations that set the movement back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

You act like we keep gays in a hole. Its these kinds of outrageous accusations that set the movement back.

---

DOMA basically relegated them to living in a hole.

And don't accuse me of setting the LGBT movement back - I'm not doing that and you damn well know it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

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

---

Oh, the corners you guys paint yourselves into :laugh4:

Strike, the gay rights movement is compared to the civil rights movement because interracial marriage was objected to in a similar way. And someday your view will be just as outdated :smash:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

DOMA basically relegated them to living in a hole.

And don't accuse me of setting the LGBT movement back - I'm not doing that and you damn well know it.

---

You mean a law? How uncivilized of those mongrels. Although I will admit the fact that the libertarian candidate authored it just goes to show how dumb the party can be, oh well

Oh Im not accusing you, I doubt you have much clout in the political circles here. But your use of vitriolic rhetoric is the same used by people who do and let me tell you right now that turns people off. ESP when many people cant be bothered with what in all honesty is a label and nothing more. Choose your words wisely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

You mean a law? How uncivilized of those mongrels. Although I will admit the fact that the libertarian candidate authored it just goes to show how dumb the party can be, oh well

Oh Im not accusing you, I doubt you have much clout in the political circles here. But your use of vitriolic rhetoric is the same used by people who do and let me tell you right now that turns people off. ESP when many people cant be bothered with what in all honesty is a label and nothing more. Choose your words wisely.

---

Oh? Where?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Oh, the corners you guys paint yourselves into :laugh4:

Strike, the gay rights movement is compared to the civil rights movement because interracial marriage was objected to in a similar way. And someday your view will be just as outdated :smash:

---

My view! lol My view that judicial overreach is bad! Oh my y'all really cant stand someone who isn't a religious not job can you?

Quote:

---

Then we have different priorities. I don't see the point in having a Constitution and a Bill of Rights when these will not guarantee basic human rights for everyone.

---

The mob doesnt like words like this. This is why the church always wins.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

The mob doesnt like words like this. This is why the church always wins.

---

vit·ri·ol·ic
adj.
1. Of, similar to, or derived from a vitriol.
2. Bitterly scathing; caustic

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

vit·ri·ol·ic
adj.
1. Of, similar to, or derived from a vitriol.
2. Bitterly scathing; caustic

---

Would you like me to change my vocabulary?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Would you like me to change my vocabulary?

---

That would be a good start.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

That would be a good start.

---

Simply because you dont understand the constitution or how to approach gay rights in America doesn't mean we need to squabble over a word. I was having fun educating you:clown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Simply because you dont understand the constitution or how to approach gay rights in America doesn't mean we need to squabble over a word. I was having fun educating you:clown:

---

It was fun being educated :rolleyes:

Alright I think I'm actually starting to get pissed off by this topic now, so I'm just going to move on and not look at this thread again. Bye...

I think CA has the better argument.

If the Constitution is in place to guarantee the rights of citizens, and yet doesn't protect the basic human rights of everybody then it is an inadequate constitution. While I recognise that any document that does guarantee everyone all their rights is going to be unworkably vague, defending the constitution because, in this case, the issue is 'trivial' isn't right. Constitutions can be changed, or reworded, and if the current one isn't fufilling its purpose then it must be changed, or overidden.