Californians cleared to vote on same-sex marriage ban

[Charles_Main]

True enough. But we can't, constitutionally, vote to deny someone's civil rights. I can see that forbidding race based quotas is acceptable, because having them actually does deny someone's civil rights. But voting to LIMIT the rights of a group that is granted freely to other groups isn't quite cricket.

Actually we could if we passed an amendment to that effect, Not that I in anyway want that.

Our constitution once made Slavery perfectly legal and even declared Slaves to equal 3/5th of a person. Sad but true.

Just saying.

 

[Shogun]

True enough. But we can't, constitutionally, vote to deny someone's civil rights. I can see that forbidding race based quotas is acceptable, because having them actually does deny someone's civil rights. But voting to LIMIT the rights of a group that is granted freely to other groups isn't quite cricket.

Did you totally miss the VOTE results from when we VOTED on civil rights for blacks? Had it resulted otherwise it would have been JUST as valid and JUST as applied. You DO realize that people VOTED to keep polygamists from having the same legal marriage rights as the typical nuclear family, right? WHY do you think that is a fact despite your emotional claim that we cannot vote on rights? THAT is what DEMOCRACIES do. We VOTE. Do you think womens suffrage was *POOF* magially VOTED into reality without past Americans VOTING against equal rights for women? Do you think that women got equality during the FIRST round of VOTING on the subject?


Where in gods green earth do you base this shit on, Ravi?

 

[Ravi]

Actually we could if we passed an amendment to that effect, Not that I in anyway want that.

Our constitution once made Slavery perfectly legal and even declared Slaves to equal 3/5th of a person. Sad but true.

Just saying.

True, we could pass an amendment for anything, even to turn the country into a communist dictatorship, prolly.

Maybe I'm not explaining myself properly. There is a difference between a constitutional amendment and a popular vote. It is my understanding that civil rights are not eligible to be put to a popular vote.

btw, I don't think the constitution ever made slavery perfectly legal. And the 3/5 bit, while of course it counted slaves and other non citizens as lesser beings, was used for distributing taxes and awarding seats in congress.

 

[Shogun]

Actually we could if we passed an amendment to that effect, Not that I in anyway want that.

Our constitution once made Slavery perfectly legal and even declared Slaves to equal 3/5th of a person. Sad but true.

Just saying.

Thats EXACTLY the point im making. It takes WE THE PEOPLE voting to give our Constitutional rights validity. One cannot separate Loving from the 14th amendment, a VOTE. For someone who thinks we can't VOTE on restricting marriage Ravi must be under a fucking rock during the 04 election when Mass caused a sweeping reaction in the US to VOTE to restrict marriage. Just like Ca is GOING to do. Until gays have their equivalent to the 14th, or gets sexual orientation included in the anti-discriminatory statutes (which is is not currently), then Ravi's emotional rants have no basis in reality.


I'll VOTE for allowing gay marriage. But im just not willing to hear some poppycock about what can't be voted on given the history of that very thing. STARTING with polygamists.


race, color, religion, sex, or national origin;


notice, NOTHING about sexual orientation.

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


had homosexuality BEEN added, It would have failed.

 

[Shogun]

True, we could pass an amendment for anything, even to turn the country into a communist dictatorship, prolly.

Maybe I'm not explaining myself properly. There is a difference between a constitutional amendment and a popular vote. It is my understanding that civil rights are not eligible to be put to a popular vote.

btw, I don't think the constitution ever made slavery perfectly legal. And the 3/5 bit, while of course it counted slaves and other non citizens as lesser beings, was used for distributing taxes and awarding seats in congress.

Again, infinitum, marriage is neither a civil right (polygamists) NOR does the Civil Rights act cover sexual orientation.

Ravi, as a private employer in a state without LEGISLATION banning discrimination against gays, which there are plenty, I cant freely and openly discriminate against you for being gay.

Sexual Orientation Discrimination in the Workplace


Antidiscrimination Laws

Federal laws. While there is no federal law that prohibits this type of discrimination in private employment, an executive order specifically outlaws discrimination based on sexual orientation in the federal government.

If you are a private employer and you operate your business in a state, county, or city with a law or ordinance prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination, you must follow that law despite the fact that there is no federal law in place.

State laws. Seventeen states and the District of Columbia have laws that currently prohibit sexual orientation discrimination in private employment: California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin. Some of these states also specifically prohibit discrimination based on gender identity. (In addition, six states have laws prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination in public workplaces only: Colorado, Delaware, Indiana, Michigan, Montana, and Pennsylvania.)



Gender Identity
Discrimination: Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity


Only 17 states and the District of Columbia have laws that ban discrimination in the workplace because of a person's sexual orientation. Only eight of those states and the District of Columbia ban discrimination in the workplace because of a person’s gender identity. Because there is no federal law prohibiting employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, working people in 33 states are being denied employment on the basis of something that has no relationship to their ability to perform their work.



Facts About Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation, Status as a Parent, Marital Status and Political Affiliation

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) does not enforce the protections that prohibit discrimination and harassment based on sexual orientation, status as a parent, marital status and political affiliation. However, other federal agencies and many states and municipalities do. The relevant federal agencies are listed below. For assistance in locating your state or local agency, contact the EEOC office nearest you.

Facts About Sexual Orientation, Status as a Parent, Marital Status and Political Affiliation Discrimination

 

[Shogun]

And, Ravi, the very FACT that such is the product of WE THE PEOPLE makes your "commie dictatorship" accusation a laughing joke.

 

[Ravi]

Does it? hmmmmmmmmmmm......

I disagree. I believe it is a civil right and until I'm convinced otherwise I will continue to see that a popular vote on the issue is wrong and unconstitutional.

 

[jillian]

Does it? hmmmmmmmmmmm......

I disagree. I believe it is a civil right and until I'm convinced otherwise I will continue to see that a popular vote on the issue is wrong and unconstitutional.

Certainly they have the right to vote to amend the State Constitution. On the other hand, I think it's fundamentally wrong to use the Constitution to limit individual rights instead of expanding them. The only other time we did that was Prohibition. So, on that level, I think it's wrong.

Even if they're successful, the question becomes: would a prohibition violate the Federal Constitution? So it doesn't end the discussion. It just continues to let the loonies do the "guns, G-d and gays" thing because they've got no play on real issues.

 

[Ravi]

Certainly they have the right to vote to amend the State Constitution. On the other hand, I think it's fundamentally wrong to use the Constitution to limit individual rights instead of expanding them. The only other time we did that was Prohibition. So, on that level, I think it's wrong.

Even if they're successful, the question becomes: would a prohibition violate the Federal Constitution? So it doesn't end the discussion. It just continues to let the loonies do the "guns, G-d and gays" thing because they've got no play on real issues.

They do have a right to vote to amend their state constitution, but not, I think, on an issue that deals with civil rights.

 

[DiamondDave]

Does it? hmmmmmmmmmmm......

I disagree. I believe it is a civil right and until I'm convinced otherwise I will continue to see that a popular vote on the issue is wrong and unconstitutional.

What you believe means squat... it is not a civil right... what next? It is a civil right to have a "civil union" with a horse? A corpse?

Again.. give the same bennies (insurance/family designations, inheritance rights, joint tax returns, etc) that extend to married couples to gays who wish to form a civil union... I am ALL for that... but it is not a marriage, nor do the liberals have any 'right' to change the definition of what marriage is

 

[Shogun]

Does it? hmmmmmmmmmmm......

I disagree. I believe it is a civil right and until I'm convinced otherwise I will continue to see that a popular vote on the issue is wrong and unconstitutional.

You can see that in the majority of state that have STANDING, VOTED Constitutional amendments saying that very thing. I've posted my evidence, Ravi. The law doesn't have to convince you of anything. It's no more unconstitutional than the reason why Polygamists can legally get married. Wrong? sure. So was LEGAL SLAVERY. But these are opinions and not Constitutional facts.

 

[Shogun]

Certainly they have the right to vote to amend the State Constitution. On the other hand, I think it's fundamentally wrong to use the Constitution to limit individual rights instead of expanding them. The only other time we did that was Prohibition. So, on that level, I think it's wrong.

Even if they're successful, the question becomes: would a prohibition violate the Federal Constitution? So it doesn't end the discussion. It just continues to let the loonies do the "guns, G-d and gays" thing because they've got no play on real issues.

But that illustrates my point EXACTLY. Prohibition DID happen. It DID become a matter voted on and it WAS passed. Later, it was repealed, which should convey the fluid nature of our Amendment process, but to say that gays ARE included as a discriminated class when they clearly are not won't keep CA from voting with the rest of the states this fall.


And no, It would not violate the Federal Constitution until gays have their version of the 14th Amendment OR are added to the list of protected statuses.


I love how you just have to talk shit at the end too, Jill. Do I strike you as the GOD type? And, since I've posted more evience than you have maybe you'd like to amend your little Play theory.

 

[Shogun]

They do have a right to vote to amend their state constitution, but not, I think, on an issue that deals with civil rights.

Sure they do. hell, sure WE do. The STATES hopped on the 14th amendment bandwagon, Ravi. This required MORE than just voting blacks. White people also voted for it. Likewise, HETEROS may choose to do the same for gays. Thats how I"LL vote. But, ignoring our constitutional process and history thereof isn't convincing and won't achieve the result you are looking for.

 

[Ravi]

They don't need their own fourteenth amendment you friggin retard. The fourteenth amendment already applies to them.

I give up on you. You can't even get it through your thick skull that the amendments you keep referencing were never put to the popular vote.

 

[Shogun]

no, it really doesn't. I posted my evidence. where is yours?

Oh NOW you want a POPULAR vote, eh? lol

Ravi, you have no clue what you are talking about.

 

[Ravi]

My God, you beat out RGS for retardedness.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

My God, you beat out RGS for retardedness.

Damn I lose at everything.

 

[Shogun]

My God, you beat out RGS for retardedness.

If only you could pare the shit talking with EVIDENCE like I have, eh Rav?


I know I know... flame zone polls will set the constitutional record strait!

 

[Ravi]

I honestly don't think we need a flame zone poll on the subject, I'm pretty sure everyone can see that you have a lot of trouble with the written word.

 

[Steerpike]

Our constitution once made Slavery perfectly legal and even declared Slaves to equal 3/5th of a person. Sad but true.

Just saying.

Based on the "sad but true" part of your statement, I suspect you don't know that the 3/5 provision was supported by people who opposed slavery, not by those who favored it.