Gay Rights are Not Civil Rights

[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.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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;

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?

[CountArach]

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

[Strike For The South]

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.

[CountArach]

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.

[GeneralHankerchief]

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.

[CountArach]

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.

[Strike For The South]

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.

[CountArach]

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.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

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

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

[Strike For The South]

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.

[CountArach]

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?

[Strike For The South]

Oh, the corners you guys paint yourselves into

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

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?

[Strike For The South]

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.

[CountArach]

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

[Strike For The South]

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?

[CountArach]

Would you like me to change my vocabulary?

That would be a good start.

[Strike For The South]

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

[CountArach]

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

It was fun being educated

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...

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

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.

[Strike For The South]

It was fun being educated

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...

Why are you getting angry? Is it because Im not the usual fodder you run into for this kind of thing? I have my view and you have yours but I think you underestimate what the constitution is and what it means to Americans, therefore you come in with a preconceived notion. If we cant have a little good natured teasing back here then it ceases to be fun.

[Strike For The South]

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.

Then we can go through the legislature. Not have judges hand out abbartiary rulings based on happiness.

Why should we overrule the legislature in favor of the courts?

[CountArach]

Why are you getting angry? Is it because Im not the usual fodder you run into for this kind of thing? I have my view and you have yours but I think you underestimate what the constitution is and what it means to Americans, therefore you come in with a preconceived notion. If we cant have a little good natured teasing back here then it ceases to be fun.

Alright I lied... I'm back...

I know it was all good-natured, but I just get really worked up when someone suggests that someone should not get something based on them being X, where X can be anything outside of the mainstream. Also, yes I get really pissed off by Americans who are strict Constitutionalists (Which I believe you are - at least you come off that way) because I just see it as a very uncompromising position that doesn't lead to anything new in society. But I do respect you for doggedly sticking to your principles and your founding document. Admittedly I probably will do the same when we get a Bill of Rights (though I would campaign for a far more liberal Bill).

Anyway - as they say on the internet... gg...

[Strike For The South]

Alright I lied... I'm back...

I know it was all good-natured, but I just get really worked up when someone suggests that someone should not get something based on them being X, where X can be anything outside of the mainstream. Also, yes I get really pissed off by Americans who are strict Constitutionalists (Which I believe you are - at least you come off that way) because I just see it as a very uncompromising position that doesn't lead to anything new in society. But I do respect you for doggedly sticking to your principles and your founding document. Admittedly I probably will do the same when we get a Bill of Rights (though I would campaign for a far more liberal Bill).

Anyway - as they say on the internet... gg...

In my perfect world the government would've never gotten involved to begin with.

They did but one mistake can not lead to more. Is it unfortunate that this is what it has come to? Yes However I truly and honestly believe that with some good politicking and a well rounded bill the gays will have what they want and it should be left to the states.

However do not ask me to throw away my document which gives me a slimmer of hope against peoples who wield power I can not dream of. I wont do that.

[CountArach]

I respect that Strike I also wish our overlords were not involved, but they are and I guess we see different solutions to the same problem with a similar goal in mind.

[Azi Tohak]

I'm happy that every state that had the choice to make into law a Gay-marriage law had it rejected. To me, that should be the end of it. The American people spoke, and said no.

Azi

[CountArach]

I'm happy that every state that had the choice to make into law a Gay-marriage law had it rejected. To me, that should be the end of it. The American people spoke, and said no.

Azi

That would be if it was a Federal law, and polls have shown that the majority of Americans support Civil Unions.

[Redleg]

Alright I lied... I'm back...

I know it was all good-natured, but I just get really worked up when someone suggests that someone should not get something based on them being X, where X can be anything outside of the mainstream. Also, yes I get really pissed off by Americans who are strict Constitutionalists (Which I believe you are - at least you come off that way) because I just see it as a very uncompromising position that doesn't lead to anything new in society. But I do respect you for doggedly sticking to your principles and your founding document. Admittedly I probably will do the same when we get a Bill of Rights (though I would campaign for a far more liberal Bill).

Anyway - as they say on the internet... gg...

As a basic - a strict constitutionalist allows for the document to be changed in accordance with the process established in the constitution. So if a law is no longer valid or is determined to be inadequate, or yes even one that denies the rights of others the process should be followed.

the legislative branch writes the law
the President has a choice to pass or veto
The courts can only rule on the constitutionality of the law, if the law is not valid it is sent back to the legislative branch to be reworked - not new law made up by the court. Ie all the court can do is determine that the law is invalid and can not be enforced by the state.

So if the law is determined to be unconstitional by the courts it must return to the legislative branch to be re-written or completely changed. If one wants to determine a portion of the constitution is no longer valid - it must follow the constitutional amendment process which allows the people to determine if they wish the constitution to be changed. The courts can not change the constitution, and the states can not make laws or amendments that conflict with the Federal Constitution.


So a determined stance is necessary to insure that the people and most importantly the government follows the established process that provides the basis for the society in the United States.

If the process is followed and it is determined that that is the standard for the nation - I dont have a problem with it being allowed or disallowed.


Now once again you speak of human rights but I don't see how a state licensing and by definition defining what constitutes a marriage, since for the state it is a contractual relationship constitutes a violation of any basic human right. What your arguement seems to be is that the standard should be changed to reflect the change in the society and the time - which I dont have a problem with, but calling what is by definition a priveledge a right does not constitution a violation of a basic human right.


For instance the Drinking age in the United States is defined as 21, this is a priviledge that the state controls. State sanctioned marriage is a priveledge, the state is not disallowing same-sex relationships from happening - it is just not licensing. So as a matter of fact you have to provide more evidence that same-sex marriage is a right versus how the state wishes to license something.

[Redleg]

That would be if it was a Federal law, and polls have shown that the majority of Americans support Civil Unions.

Marriage by definition is a state obligation since it is not covered in the Federal Constitution. So I am not really sure what point you are attempting here.

[CountArach]

Marriage by definition is a state obligation since it is not covered in the Federal Constitution. So I am not really sure what point you are attempting here.

I was responding to the claim that the American people have spoken. They haven't - only the people in those states have.

Now once again you speak of human rights but I don't see how a state licensing and by definition defining what constitutes a marriage, since for the state it is a contractual relationship constitutes a violation of any basic human right. What your arguement seems to be is that the standard should be changed to reflect the change in the society and the time - which I dont have a problem with, but calling what is by definition a priveledge a right does not constitution a violation of a basic human right.

I see marriage as a right.

For instance the Drinking age in the United States is defined as 21, this is a priviledge that the state controls. State sanctioned marriage is a priveledge, the state is not disallowing same-sex relationships from happening - it is just not licensing. So as a matter of fact you have to provide more evidence that same-sex marriage is a right versus how the state wishes to license something.

What you are describing is a privilege of the States to determine their marriage laws, what I am saying it is the right of the people to get married. The two are completely different things. one is a communal right, the other is an individual right.