Gay Rights are Not Civil Rights

[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 And someday your view will be just as outdated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.

[Husar]

Well, it's pretty easy, marriage is defined as a bound/binding of a male and a female and noone ever said gays do not have a right to that, they're perfectly fine to find someone of the other sex and marry them, the whole fuss is about the fact that they want to change the definition of something others hold in high esteem, somewhat similar to the commercializing of christmas that many people do not like as they feel their tradition is being destroyed.
If they'd just accept that man-man and woman-woman relationships are called civil unions and if the rest would just accept civil unions as a means to get tax benefits then I do not really see where someone could find a problem with all that and the whole debate is just stupid anyway. I've never sen marriage as a way to get tax benefits anyway, if that's all you want, don't be surprised about such high divorce rates.

[Louis VI the Fat]

the 14th Amendment:

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

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?

The constitution needs to be interpreted literally when its wording is chrystal clear. As is the case here: 'No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens'. All States are explicity prohibited from implementing gender or racial requirements to enter any specific marriage.


The slippery slope argument fails. US law perfectly well distinguishes between one person and groups of persons. Or between a natural person, and a legal person. Between a person and an animal.
The argument that an end to requirements of gender to enter marriage means that anybody or anything can enter marriage is not supported by American law. Not in the slightest way.

[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.

[Redleg]

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

Which still means what - people are speaking about it, and some states have determined a ruling on it alreadly.

I see marriage as a right.

its a legal contract - hince its not a right

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.

You defeated your own arguement here - marriage by definition is a communal thing not a private one

[CountArach]

You defeated your own arguement here - marriage by definition is a communal thing not a private one

We disagree... again...

[Redleg]

We disagree... again...

Happens all the time. But you called it an individual right while marriage has in by definition a communal relationship to the state.


From Websters - using both parts of the definition.

"(1) the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>"

Now this definition describes marriage has I have been speaking a consensual and contractual relationship recongized by the law of the state. So in order to have same-sex marriage it has to follow the legal course established in the state's constitution. I find websters definition a bit on the weak side by the way, because it begins to define same-sex marriage but hestitates on fully defining it - like does not always mean exactly.

Which means you have to demonstrate that there is an individual right begin denied to overturn the current law. I don't see an individual right being denied to anyone, since the state is merely defining a communal relationship.

Are individuals being denied the ability to be gay?

[Andres]

After reading this thread, I am proud to be a Belgian.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is directly applicable under Belgian Law.

Idem dito for the European Convention on Human Rights.

The development of Belgium into a federal state also brought us something very worthwhile: The Constitutional Court. One of its' tasks is to make sure that Belgian laws do not violate the principles of equality and non-discrimination. It has the power to annul or suspend any law that violates those principles.

Like I said before, this thread is not about "Gay Rights", this is about discrimination, nothing else.

Denying people to marry because of their sex/the sex of their partner, is discrimination. Discrimination without justification is unworthy for a civilised nation. Period.

All men are equal before the law. That's what we should strive for.

If the US constitution does not guarantee the principles of equality and non-discrimination, then the US Constitution needs to be changed.

[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.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The constitution needs to be interpreted literally when its wording is chrystal clear. As is the case here: 'No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens'. All States are explicity prohibited from implementing gender or racial requirements to enter any specific marriage.


The slippery slope argument fails. US law perfectly well distinguishes between one person and groups of persons. Or between a natural person, and a legal person. Between a person and an animal.
The argument that an end to requirements of gender to enter marriage means that anybody or anything can enter marriage is not supported by American law. Not in the slightest way.

Be fair cher Louis, I was making my counterpoint in regards to PERSONS. What people wish to do with their own lawn furniture is their business and would have no legal standing. I specifically limited my point to mentally competent adult citizens.

However, if we take that passage at its most literal, on what grounds COULD you restrict marriage to only two persons? Or prohibit concurrent marriages? By what principle would it be valid to prevent a brother and sister from marrying? However prescient our FF, or however open-minded the writers of this ammendment, I believe you are stretching the point past the original intent of either to make it inclusive of homosexuals et al.

When that ammendment was passed into law, the consideration that it would be used as a means to justify marriage between any other than a 1 female + 1 male combination would have been virtually unthinkable.

My point is not to present a slippery slope -- if A occurs then Z must occur -- but to highlight the value of original intent in reading these documents. Since I believe the writers of this ammendment did NOT mean to address women's suffrage or gay marriage (the ammendment was concerned with race), I believe the matter must be left up to the states.

Note, if homosexuality is ultimately confirmed to be a condition one is born with (I tend to believe that, but no conclusive proof exists), THEN the parallel with race becomes stronger.

[Kralizec]

If you ask me there's absolutely no good reason to enable heterosexual couples to get a legal status with all sorts of legal and fiscal perks, and to deny it to same sex couples. If you don't think it's discrimination, picture a law making it illegal to practice the sabbath on any other day than sunday and tell me if that's discriminatory.

That said, countries have been handing out marriage licenses for over two centuries and homosexuality has only recently gained some tolerance and even more recently, acceptance. It's thoroughly political, and the introduction of gay marriage or civil unions should proceed through elected officials and not through unelected magistrates.

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.

Uh, no.

In the Netherlands the top court once refused to acknowledge a gay couple's right to marry because facilitating such a change was the job of the legislator. A couple of years later we were the first country in the world to introduce gay marriage.

[CountArach]

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?

Well we don't, so there wouldn't be much lost.

[Koga No Goshi]

First lets forget the fact that gays arent nearly subject to 1/100000000 of the prejudice that blacks were.

I will give this topic more attention later Strike (to anyone who might have wondered I am buried at work at the moment) but I just had to throw out... this little comment was a big loser, Strike. When black people talk about the discrimination they experience, the same basic crowd who would respond with an attitude like "oh well how long has it been since slavery... name something serious in your lifetime, please" then turn around and say gay equality issues are a joke because they aren't 1/1000000000 as serious as the ones against blacks.

So, you can't win.

We are, thankfully, heading out of the era where every single black person has a story about a family member lynched, or shot by police, or losing or being refused a job they were qualified for, just because of prejudice. However, it is quite safe to say that a majority, if not all, of the presently living gay people in the U.S. have faced physical violence, the real and direct threat of such, the loss of a job, or had to conceal their sexuality in order to get, or keep, a job. So saying that gay people didn't come over on a slave ship is rather glib when a more realistic comparison would be, for example, the situation of many blacks in the 1960s where their equal legal rights either didn't fully exist or were widely unrecognized, and the situation of many gay people today where things like "Don't ask, don't tell" are still the law of the land, and discrimination against them is still, in many regards, absolutely legal and upheld. I honestly don't know why you or anyone else, especially someone who is not homophobic and not antagonistic to the concept of gay rights or equality, would feel the need to vehemently iterate that the legal and social problems facing gay people are in every way totally unanalagous to some of the history of civil rights for racial minorities. It comes off like a very desperate effort to insist that what discrimination does exist against gay people, is okay, because it "obviously isn't as bad" as what happened to blacks 150 or 300 years ago.

[Strike For The South]

I will give this topic more attention later Strike (to anyone who might have wondered I am buried at work at the moment) but I just had to throw out... this little comment was a big loser, Strike. When black people talk about the discrimination they experience, the same basic crowd who would respond with an attitude like "oh well how long has it been since slavery... name something serious in your lifetime, please" then turn around and say gay equality issues are a joke because they aren't 1/1000000000 as serious as the ones against blacks.

So, you can't win.

We are, thankfully, heading out of the era where every single black person has a story about a family member lynched, or shot by police, or losing or being refused a job they were qualified for, just because of prejudice. However, it is quite safe to say that a majority, if not all, of the presently living gay people in the U.S. have faced physical violence, the real and direct threat of such, the loss of a job, or had to conceal their sexuality in order to get, or keep, a job. So saying that gay people didn't come over on a slave ship is rather glib when a more realistic comparison would be, for example, the situation of many blacks in the 1960s where their equal legal rights either didn't fully exist or were widely unrecognized, and the situation of many gay people today where things like "Don't ask, don't tell" are still the law of the land, and discrimination against them is still, in many regards, absolutely legal and upheld. I honestly don't know why you or anyone else, especially someone who is not homophobic and not antagonistic to the concept of gay rights or equality, would feel the need to vehemently iterate that the legal and social problems facing gay people are in every way totally unanalagous to some of the history of civil rights for racial minorities. It comes off like a very desperate effort to insist that what discrimination does exist against gay people, is okay, because it "obviously isn't as bad" as what happened to blacks 150 or 300 years ago.

Hate crimes agianst gays are only 1/5 of the amount when compared to race and still less than by religon. Does that make it right? Hell no but then we have a disconnect. I dont see gay rights as the next logical step in the civil rights movement, and to equate the two is insulting. Gay people today are allowed to have parades and they are celebrated in some circles. When blacks converged they were met with dogs and hoses and the whites who sympathized with them were often worse off.

As someone who would like to see gays be on equal footing I suggest you drop this kind of mindsets because it will only put off the blacks and hispanics and we need there votes. Do you know why blacks come out so vehemently against gay marriage? Its because they are equated with the rights they fought so hard for.

My data: Link

[CountArach]

As someone who would like to see gays be on equal footing I suggest you drop this kind of mindsets because it will only put off the blacks and hispanics and we need there votes. Do you know why blacks come out so vehemently against gay marriage? Its because they are equated with the rights they fought so hard for.

Hispanics barely voted in favour of the proposition. In fact the reason why Blacks came out in favour of Prop 8 is because they are far more religious than the average voter. However, that is not the primary reason why the vote failed. I'll let Nate Silver take the rest:

Furthermore, it would be premature to say that new Latino and black voters were responsible for Prop 8's passage. Latinos aged 18-29 (not strictly the same as 'new' voters, but the closest available proxy) voted against Prop 8 by a 59-41 margin. These figures are not available for young black voters, but it would surprise me if their votes weren't fairly close to the 50-50 mark.

At the end of the day, Prop 8's passage was more a generational matter than a racial one. If nobody over the age of 65 had voted, Prop 8 would have failed by a point or two. It appears that the generational splits may be larger within minority communities than among whites, although the data on this is sketchy.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I specifically limited my point to mentally competent adult citizens.


Note, if homosexuality is ultimately confirmed to be a condition one is born with (I tend to believe that, but no conclusive proof exists), THEN the parallel with race becomes stronger.

I am specifically limiting myself to mentally competent adults only as well.

The nature and cause of homosexuality is not relevant. This is not about gay rights. Gays have all the rights they need. They are allowed to have sex, to get married, to have a job and to sit anywhere in a bus. What more could they possibly ask for?

This is about unconstitutional requirements to marry. Mentally competent adult X must be free to marry mentally competent person Y. It is entirely unconstitutional to impose restrictions based on race or sex.

[Andres]

Note, if homosexuality is ultimately confirmed to be a condition one is born with (I tend to believe that, but no conclusive proof exists), THEN the parallel with race becomes stronger.

Does it really matter if homosexuality is a condition one is born with or not?

Mentally competent adult X must be free to marry mentally competent person Y.

Voilà.

Not allowing X to marry Y because X and Y are of the same sex is discrimination. Discrimination without justification which is unworthy for any civilised country nowadays.

[LittleGrizzly]

So did you come up with that by yourself or get it from somewhere else.... it really is the most compelling legal argument i have seen on the matter...

[Xiahou]

It is entirely unconstitutional to impose restrictions based on race or sex.

Just like public restrooms, locker rooms, sports leagues, draft laws, military service, maternity leave, and so on right?

The nature and cause of homosexuality is not relevant. This is not about gay rights.

I think we can agree about that.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Does it really matter if homosexuality is a condition one is born with or not?

Only to the extent that, if it is, then the parallels drawn between race and homosexuality would be stronger. We have already held that race should not be used as a "qualifier" to ones rights.

Remember, much of the "traditionalist" opposition to homosexuality etc. centers on the belief that it is a chosen behavior -- and certain behaviors have always been held to be a legitimate reason to curtail the rights and privileges of a citizen.

[Strike For The South]

Hispanics barely voted in favour of the proposition. In fact the reason why Blacks came out in favour of Prop 8 is because they are far more religious than the average voter. However, that is not the primary reason why the vote failed. I'll let Nate Silver take the rest:

Well that kinda of sucks the hispanic vote went yes even though it was now or never

-The majority of the bloc is young, they will only get older and more conservative
-The majority live in SoCal and all that libreal thought couldnt get them the vote
-The en vouge notion of the hispanic as a oppressed immigrant group is on its way out in Texas and Cali. It peaked a couple years back and now they are voting allot more with republicans and with there catholic roots in ten years when there middle class and have families its over, esp if the civil rights thing is brought up.

So did you come up with that by yourself or get it from somewhere else.... it really is the most compelling legal argument i have seen on the matter...

Is this one of those lovely sarcasm things I've heard so much about? Or were you not even talking to me? Because that one happens allot to!

[CountArach]

Well that kinda of sucks the hispanic vote went yes even though it was now or never

-The majority of the bloc is young, they will only get older and more conservative

Actually the very 45-64 age group voted at roughly the same level as the 30-44 group, but most crucially as they start to Americanise (Assuming most of the youngest group are second generation or longer) they are more likely to pick up liberal values. Obama picked up most of the Latino vote.

-The majority live in SoCal and all that libreal thought couldnt get them the vote

The election was over well before the polls closed in California, meaning that Obama turnout was somewhat dampened. Further, the Yes on Prop 8 had a huge amount of money donate by churches (Far more than the No on Prop 8 could get together), not to mention a far better GOTV operation... which is to say that the No vote had No ground game at all.

-The en vouge notion of the hispanic as a oppressed immigrant group is on its way out in Texas and Cali. It peaked a couple years back and now they are voting allot more with republicans and with there catholic roots in ten years when there middle class and have families its over, esp if the civil rights thing is brought up.

Obama won 67% of the Latino vote nationally. Bush won 35% and 44% of the vote in 2000 and 2004 respectively. They are still a long way from being a Republican voting bloc and Obama may be able to solidify them as Democratic.

[Goofball]

Not really.

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

No matter how many times I hear that old conservative gem, it still gets a chuckle out of me. That's gold, I tell ya Jerry, Gold!

[Rhyfelwyr]

No matter how many times I hear that old conservative gem, it still gets a chuckle out of me. That's gold, I tell ya Jerry, Gold!

And yet it's constitutionally sound.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

And yet it's constitutionally sound.

Would it be constitutionally sound to change the law so that if you wanted to get married you had to marry someone of the same sex? Xiahou certainly wouldn't object, because his rights wouldn't change...

[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]

its not constitutionally sound ITS NOT IN THE THING...for anyone!

[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.

[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.