Skylar
Diamond Member
- Jul 5, 2014
- 53,766
- 16,194
Incorrect.Bullshit reply
Black and Gay are different issues. There were laws saying what blacks could and could not do. There is no such law for gays, gays can do exactly the same things straights can. It's a false analogy. You can like it or not, but I'm not explaining one issue in relation to a completely different issue.
There were laws that controlled the lives of gay Americans as well, laws that violated their civil rights just as the rights of African-Americans were violated.
For example, in Colorado, Amendment 2 made it illegal for LGBT residents of that state to avail themselves of anti-discrimination laws. The Colorado Supreme Court struck down that measure as a violation of the 14th Amendment, whose ruling was affirmed by the US Supreme Court (Romer v. Evans).
In Texas it was illegal for consenting adult gay men to engage in sex in the privacy of their own homes. The Texas law was likewise invalidated by the Supreme Court for violating the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment (Lawrence v. Texas).
Just as African-Americans were compelled to fight for their civil rights in the courts a generation ago to strike down discriminatory, un-Constitutional measures, so too must gay Americans fight for their civil rights today; against unjust measures violating the equal protection rights of same-sex couples.
False analogy
No, it isn't. The Supreme Court itself has cited Loving V. Virginia as an example of the constitutional guarantees that state marriage laws are subject to when discussing gay marriage.
ROFLMNAO!
No... it hasn't.
Yes, it has.
Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,” Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393.
Winsdor v. US
And note you don't dispute any of my citations of Romer v Evans citing case after case involving racial discrimination when explaining how laws targeting gays were invalid.
Smart that. As you'd be wrong then too.