Gay Rights are Not Civil Rights

[GeneralHankerchief]

But Obama got elected.

[CountArach]

But Obama got elected.

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

[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.

[CountArach]

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.

[Xiahou]

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.

[CountArach]

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.

I had a feeling we might see the UN differently

[GoreBag]

I'll have a footlong GBLT, please. lawl

[Ronin]

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.

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

[GeneralHankerchief]

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

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

[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.

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.

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.

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

[Xiahou]

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?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

How do you figure?

Probably from this:

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

[Louis VI the Fat]

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.

[Strike For The South]

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

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.

[CountArach]

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.

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.

[Louis VI the Fat]

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.

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

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.

[lars573]

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.

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.

Coming from one of those monarchies with a charter of rights and freedoms, I take offence to your insinuations.
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/
Also gay marriages were legalized in 8 provinces by the provincial supreme courts via the equality rights (section 15) of said charter. After which the federal government forced it on 2 provinces.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Coming from one of those monarchies with a charter of rights and freedoms, I take offence to your insinuations.
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/
Also gay marriages were legalized in 8 provinces by the provincial supreme courts via the equality rights (section 15) of said charter. After which the federal government forced it on 2 provinces.

By Jove! Canada too!

It is becoming increasingly more clear that of all the civilised countries in the world. the only one lacking a Bill of Rights is Australia. Can we even consider Oz part of the civilised world anymore?

Interestingly, Canada followed the legal path that I suggested. Article 15 mentions nothing of discrimination based on sexual preference. This of course is not at all necessary to render a prohibtion of same-sex marriage unconstitutional. As under the US constitution, the crucial element is that the constitution prohibits the discrimination based on sex.


Canadian Charter of Rights:
15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.