Gay Rights are Not Civil Rights

[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.

[Rhyfelwyr]

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

[Goofball]

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

Because the issues are remarkably similar? That would be my guess anyway.

[Ronin]

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.... you mean those men didn´t know what the law needed to be for ever and ever??

the things one learns each day

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??

[Strike For The South]

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

the things one learns each day

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??

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

[GeneralHankerchief]

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

the things one learns each day

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??

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.

[naut]

The Constitution is flexible that way.

You'll find the gays are too.

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.

[Louis VI the Fat]

What gender is being discriminated against? A member of either can get married to the member of the opposite. The same rules apply to both genders. The 'sexual rights' claim really doesn't seem to have much standing.

Both genders are discriminated against. Under the US constitution, there can be no requirement of gender to engage in a civil contract.

Banning interracial marriage discriminated against couples based on their race. Refusing to sanction gay marriage is based on behavior.

No, citizens are not prohibited from marriage based on behaviour. They are prohibited from marrying based on their gender. This is crucial. Nobody checks the gayness of a person's behaviour to see if they are eligable for marriage. Their gender is checked.

This is not about gay or gay rights.

Same-sex marriages are protected by the 14th amendment regardless of whether either partner is gay. This means that I can legally wed Strike, even though our love is entirely Platonic and will never be consumed (provided, of course, that I can run faster than Strike when he comes home drunk).

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.

The Equality Act does not grant rights. It means that all British equally lack human rights.

The Human Rights Act simply regulates further provisions for European law. The rights themselves are in European law. These European laws are legally binding in and of themselves in the UK. European law is the only legally binding 'Bill of Rights' in Britain.

But hey, at least the basic human rights of Britain's subjects are protected by Europe. Unlike subjects in former British colonies like Australia - one of the few Western countries that lack a legally binding human rights document.

[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;

[Strike For The South]

Probably from this:

Everyone is equal.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Everyone is equal.

True, every individual is equal.

[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]

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.

[Louis VI the Fat]

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.

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

[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.

[Strike For The South]

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.

[Louis VI the Fat]

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?

[KarlXII]

Just so we're clear:

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.

[Redleg]

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.

2 - The same.

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

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.

[Xiahou]

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.

Need I point out that the Equal Rights Amendment failed?
What gender is being discriminated against? A member of either can get married to the member of the opposite. The same rules apply to both genders. The 'sexual rights' claim really doesn't seem to have much standing.

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

And you know who else used those arguments? That NAZIS! Hooray for the guilt by association fallacy.

Banning interracial marriage discriminated against couples based on their race. Refusing to sanction gay marriage is based on behavior. There's an obvious difference there and many who struggled in the civil rights movement find such comparisons offensive.

As the topic states, and Redleg put so succinctly, this isn't about Constitutional rights- it's purely a legislative matter. Gay marriage supporters can make their case to their legislators, or put forward ballot initiatives. Either way, convince enough people to support them and they'll get what that want. On the other hand, try to force it on people thru the courts and you'll end up with constitutional bans and more resentment.