Gay Rights are Not Civil Rights

[Strike For The South]

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

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.

[CrossLOPER]

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

Please see me after class.

[Strike For The South]

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/?

[Louis VI the Fat]

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

I see.

[Strike For The South]

I see.

? 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

[Louis VI the Fat]

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

[Strike For The South]

Ok Freud disicet me

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

You big tease :filrt:

[Strike For The South]

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

[CountArach]

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

[Strike For The South]

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?

[CountArach]

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.

[GeneralHankerchief]

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.

[CountArach]

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...

[Strike For The South]

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.

[Andres]

A) Define "gay rights".

Using that term already implies discrimination.

B) As for discrimination:

Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

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.

[GeneralHankerchief]

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.

[CountArach]

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

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

[Strike For The South]

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.

[CountArach]

That document holds no weight in my country.

Your country signed it, ergo it holds weight.

@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...

[Strike For The South]

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.

[CountArach]

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:



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

[Xiahou]

Your country signed it, ergo it holds weight.

Not really.

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.

[CountArach]

Not really.

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

[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

[Strike For The South]

Allow me to channel my inner Tribesman:



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

and you missed the point of my post.