Gay Rights are Not Civil Rights

[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.

[Strike For The South]

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

[Goofball]

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.

So, if one of your states passed a law today saying, for example, that deaf people, due to the extra burden they place on the state should all be subject to a ban on marriage (for fear they might procreate and produce more deaf people), you would not support that state's supreme court right to overturn that law on the grounds that it violated that state's constitution?

[Strike For The South]

So, if one of your states passed a law today saying, for example, that deaf people, due to the extra burden they place on the state should all be subject to a ban on marriage (for fear they might procreate and produce more deaf people), you would not support that state's supreme court right to overturn that law on the grounds that it violated that state's constitution?

No I would not. I would call my local congressmen and yell at the man.

[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.