homosexual's file suit in Tn

[9thIDdoc]

I thought you know what it means for minorities to fight for their rights. From the National Socialist I had expected nothing else ...

Gays aren't a minority any more than blonde people are a minority. They already have rights to marry just like anyone else. They want special rights. And they can't have them.

Incorrect.

In Romer, and as reaffirmed in Lawrence, homosexuals constitute a particular class of persons entitled to Constitutional protections from government harm; in particular: the 5th Amendment right to individual liberty and to define oneself as he sees fit free from interference by the state, and the 14th Amendment right to due process and equal protection of all laws, including marriage law.

Consequently, same-sex couples seek no ‘special rights,’ only the rights they and all others currently possess, to marry whom they wish, and to express themselves in the context of individual liberty.

"...5th Amendment right to individual liberty and to define oneself..."

Do you REALLY need someone to explain the difference between "individual" and "couple"?
Gay individuals are as much at liberty to marry a member of the opposite sex as anyone else and straights are just as restricted from marrying the same sex as are gays. With the possible exception of Utah, couples are not allowed to marry anyone in the USA. Sorry, one person per license; no animals; no children; nobody of the same sex. Any of those would indeed be a special exception. Make an exception for gays and pedophiles and animal lovers could argue they deserve one by the same logic.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Gays aren't a minority any more than blonde people are a minority. They already have rights to marry just like anyone else. They want special rights. And they can't have them.

Incorrect.

In Romer, and as reaffirmed in Lawrence, homosexuals constitute a particular class of persons entitled to Constitutional protections from government harm; in particular: the 5th Amendment right to individual liberty and to define oneself as he sees fit free from interference by the state, and the 14th Amendment right to due process and equal protection of all laws, including marriage law.

Consequently, same-sex couples seek no ‘special rights,’ only the rights they and all others currently possess, to marry whom they wish, and to express themselves in the context of individual liberty.

"...5th Amendment right to individual liberty and to define oneself..."

Do you REALLY need someone to explain the difference between "individual" and "couple"?
Gay individuals are as much at liberty to marry a member of the opposite sex as anyone else and straights are just as restricted from marrying the same sex as are gays. With the possible exception of Utah, couples are not allowed to marry anyone in the USA. Sorry, one person per license; no animals; no children; nobody of the same sex. Any of those would indeed be a special exception. Make an exception for gays and pedophiles and animal lovers could argue they deserve one by the same logic.

The State of Virginia made the same structural argument to justify its ban on interracial marriages. They used different words but he structure was still the same. That because each individual could Civilly Marry and the law was applied equally amongst the races that no unlawful discrimination occurred.

The SCOTUS didn't buy that argument then either, they looked at the treatment of the couple.


>>>>

 

[9thIDdoc]

Incorrect.

In Romer, and as reaffirmed in Lawrence, homosexuals constitute a particular class of persons entitled to Constitutional protections from government harm; in particular: the 5th Amendment right to individual liberty and to define oneself as he sees fit free from interference by the state, and the 14th Amendment right to due process and equal protection of all laws, including marriage law.

Consequently, same-sex couples seek no ‘special rights,’ only the rights they and all others currently possess, to marry whom they wish, and to express themselves in the context of individual liberty.

"...5th Amendment right to individual liberty and to define oneself..."

Do you REALLY need someone to explain the difference between "individual" and "couple"?
Gay individuals are as much at liberty to marry a member of the opposite sex as anyone else and straights are just as restricted from marrying the same sex as are gays. With the possible exception of Utah, couples are not allowed to marry anyone in the USA. Sorry, one person per license; no animals; no children; nobody of the same sex. Any of those would indeed be a special exception. Make an exception for gays and pedophiles and animal lovers could argue they deserve one by the same logic.

The State of Virginia made the same structural argument to justify its ban on interracial marriages. They used different words but he structure was still the same. That because each individual could Civilly Marry and the law was applied equally amongst the races that no unlawful discrimination occurred.

The SCOTUS didn't buy that argument then either, they looked at the treatment of the couple.


>>>>

There some very considerable differences between race, gender, species and age.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"...5th Amendment right to individual liberty and to define oneself..."

Do you REALLY need someone to explain the difference between "individual" and "couple"?
Gay individuals are as much at liberty to marry a member of the opposite sex as anyone else and straights are just as restricted from marrying the same sex as are gays. With the possible exception of Utah, couples are not allowed to marry anyone in the USA. Sorry, one person per license; no animals; no children; nobody of the same sex. Any of those would indeed be a special exception. Make an exception for gays and pedophiles and animal lovers could argue they deserve one by the same logic.

The State of Virginia made the same structural argument to justify its ban on interracial marriages. They used different words but he structure was still the same. That because each individual could Civilly Marry and the law was applied equally amongst the races that no unlawful discrimination occurred.

The SCOTUS didn't buy that argument then either, they looked at the treatment of the couple.


>>>>

There some very considerable differences between race, gender, species and age.

Although homosexuals do not constitute a suspect class, where laws under review seeking to disadvantage that class are almost always subject to strict scrutiny, laws designed to disadvantage homosexuals, a particular class of persons, such as Colorado’s Amendment 2 or Texas’s anti-sodomy law, will fail to pass Constitutional muster when subject to intermediate scrutiny, or even a rational basis review.

That was the conclusion with Proposition 8, where the measure sought to disadvantage same-sex couples absent even a rational relationship to a legitimate governmental interest.

Last, the Court has held and again reaffirmed that the 5th Amendment’s Liberty Clause guarantees each individual the right to self-determination, free from interference by the state. Consequently, whether one ‘elects’ to be gay, or homosexuality occurs naturally, is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant, where the same civil liberties protections apply in either case.