Deep Shame

[eric]

Let us all who feel strongly get involved. Thanks for the support !

 

[wonderwench]

I protect your right to be hypocrites. Even the KKK and the Nazi Party can engage in free speech.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by wonderwench
No, you are wrong.

You expect the government to enforce your religious beliefs. That is Unconsitutional.

Your interpretation of the founding principles is precisely what the Framers did not intend: a suppression of individual rights in favor of the majority viewpoint.

And you seem to think a ban on gay marriages somehow steps on their constitutional rights. Can you tell me specifically what rights these are?

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by wonderwench
I protect your right to be hypocrites. Even the KKK and the Nazi Party can engage in free speech.

Speaking out against gay marriages makes us equivalent to the KKK or nazi's???????

 

[wonderwench]

Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxiv.html

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by wonderwench
No, you are wrong.

You expect the government to enforce your religious beliefs. That is Unconsitutional.

Your interpretation of the founding principles is precisely what the Framers did not intend: a suppression of individual rights in favor of the majority viewpoint.

Nope, I am not incorrect. You just said that defining marriage as a contract between a man and a woman denied homosexuals their basic constitutional right. Please name such rights. As I've proven before, there is no right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in the constitution. There is no right of sex between men/men or women/women. There is no right of marriage either.

Equal protection under the law is very different than protection for every act. They are not the same.

I do not practice any religion, not that it's any of your business, so I could not be expecting a government to enforce one on my behalf.

 

[eric]

I don't see how this affects marriage, which is not a constitutional right !

A federal marriage amendment, supported by members of both political parties, will soon be introduced in Congress.

An amendment such as this protects marriage from redefinition by either state legislatures or an activist liberal judge. A federal marriage amendment would stop activist judges from giving legal benefits of marriage to same-sex couples.

It’s just a matter of time before an activist judge re-interprets the Constitution by inventing a "right" to gay "marriage."

The stakes are so high, says former federal judge Robert Bork, that the battle ahead is nothing less than "the Gettysburg between the culture of the average American and the culture of the intellectual elite. Overwhelmingly, the public would vote against [gay] marriage, but the courts are going to thrust it on us, jam it down our throats."

"Once we have abandoned the concept of marriage as the union of a man and a woman, [we] will have no principled basis for rejecting polygamy - or any form of sexual involvement," explained Princeton Law Professor Robert George.

 

[wonderwench]

Originally posted by Moi
Nope, I am not incorrect. You just said that defining marriage as a contract between a man and a woman denied homosexuals their basic constitutional right. Please name such rights. As I've proven before, there is no right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in the constitution. There is no right of sex between men/men or women/women. There is no right of marriage either.

Equal protection under the law is very different than protection for every act. They are not the same.

I do not practice any religion, not that it's any of your business, so I could not be expecting a government to enforce one on my behalf.

You are engaged in some knot twisting sophistry. Equal protection is equal protection. Why should hetero-sexuals be able to have sex in the privacy of their bedrooms but not homosexuals. Your religious tinged opinions are what have been used to persecute minorities.

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by wonderwench
Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxiv.html

Umm, I believe your quote was "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" which, as I've stated does not exist. Homosexuals aren't being thwarted of their life or liberty. They have not been denied their property. Mind you, those rights clearly have limitations but as I don't believe they are even infringed upon in this example that's irrelevant.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by wonderwench
Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxiv.html

Forgive me, but I don't see a damn thing in their about marriages. Can you please clarify?

 

[wonderwench]

Please reread the 14th Amendment and the address how homosexuals are excluded from the equal protection clause.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by wonderwench
You are engaged in some knot twisting sophistry. Equal protection is equal protection. Why should hetero-sexuals be able to have sex in the privacy of their bedrooms but not homosexuals. Your religious tinged opinions are what have been used to persecute minorities.

Huh?

Who said anything about homosexuals not being able to have sex in the privacy of their bedrooms?

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by wonderwench
You are engaged in some knot twisting sophistry. Equal protection is equal protection. Why should hetero-sexuals be able to have sex in the privacy of their bedrooms but not homosexuals. Your religious tinged opinions are what have been used to persecute minorities.

Well, once again, as I am not religious, I doubt anything I've said is religious in nature. Morality isn't necessarily religion although I grant that most religions claim moral purposes. They are not mutually inclusive nor exclusive.

Secondly, no one- including me- has said they advocate laws forbidding homosexual sex. So your first point herein is irrelevant. It is you who engage in sophistry. You still haven't been able to reconcile certain acts being illegal when they affect only the actor and are committed in private.

 

[wonderwench]

Please explain why homosexuals should be excluded from equal protection under the law.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by wonderwench
Please explain why homosexuals should be excluded from equal protection under the law.

Please explain how the sanctity of marriage has anything to do with the law.

 

[jimnyc]

Single people as well do not have these same protections as married couples. Should all the single people line up to petition the courts?

 

[wonderwench]

Marriage is a legal relationship governed by law. If it were just a private or religious ceremony, the government would have no role. But as far as the government is concerned, marriage is a legal partnership, with aspects of a binding contract. Partners share certain benefits and obligations. The fact that the states have made law puts marriage into the domain of equal protection.

 

[eric]

What is wrong with gay marriage read this :

http://www.nogaymarriage.com/gaymarriagequestions.html

 

[wonderwench]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Single people as well do not have these same protections as married couples. Should all the single people line up to petition the courts?

They have the ability to form a marriage contract - choosing not to do so means they are willing to forgo the rights and obligations of their own free will.

 

[eric]

And I ask again, Where does equal protection stop ?