LGBT -- seeking respct and acceptance form the mainstream...?

[martybegan]

There is the inherent belief that government should not get involved unless absolutely necessary, where there is an inherent, and tangible need for it to intervene. Black people being denied use of a water fountain is a good example, gay people being denied access to a large majority of bakers in an area would be another.

There is no inherent belief and even if there were it would be irrelevant. The states have the authority to regulate this. There is nothing in the Constitution which says they can't. You are free to oppose it, to petition the government, to run for office to fight against it, but the states still have the authority. There is nothing in the Constitution or in any law in this nation I am aware of which says that every law must please everyone. The 14th amendment says the laws must be applied equally, it doesn't say they must be fair.

Very Lawful Neutral answer from you, and that's neither a compliment or an insult.

Thank you. I intended it as such.

You indicated that there is a tangible need if gay people were denied access to a large majority of bakers in the area. Suppose we have a small town in a rural area and there is only one baker. Does that create a tangible need? If so, aren't we then providing special protection to bakers in areas where there are multiple bakers? Why would a baker in a rural area have less of a right to their personal beliefs than one in an urban area?

I will tell you that I don't disagree with you but I don't have an answer to those questions. I think that is something which needs to be resolved by the communities themselves. So I am law neutral. I don't expect to be happy with every law or agree with every law. But I do think it is important that the people who live in a community have some say in how it is run. If that community imposes restrictions on its citizens unacceptable to the state, the state can step in. If that state imposes restrictions unacceptable to the nation, then the feds can step in. But I much prefer the control is local.

Considering two things, 1) there is probably always another baker within 20 miles unless you live in Alaska, and 2) the type of town that has one baker that doesn't want to work a gay wedding would probably have chased off any of its gay people a long long time ago, the scenario is a limited one at best.

The answer is you have to apply an impact analysis to BOTH sides of the equation, favoring the side of government not getting involved unless it absolutely has to, and only then for substantive economic impacts, or unless government itself is directly involved.

Right now the impact analysis is skewed by the whole concept of a "protective class" that grossly outweighs any other consideration. This was the proper thing to do when it came to blacks in the US during Jim crow, as it was pervasive government mandated discrimination that was the problem, which had a substantial economic impact on those being oppressed, but here we do not have wholesale commerce denial going on with regards to the group (gays) in question.

You said a majority in the area, which implies there are others in the area someone could go to. My example is such that all of the bakers in the area deny services. I don't understand how your example is tangible while mine is not.

Who is the "you" who has to apply an impact analysis?

As usual it is the courts, but I trust the courts less and less in this country every passing day.

 

[martybegan]

you understand that the difference between what the states can regulate and the feds can regulate in this area is the same, right?

Not necessarily. But in general that is the case. The thing is, there are no federal laws which apply to these particular cases. They are all based in state laws. Even the marriage cases are based in 14th amendment application to state laws, not the application of federal law (and I know the Constitution is federal, I'm just separating it out here).

I agree with that. In fact, I even agree full faith and credit demands all states recognize marriages from other states, even ones that don't issue SSM licenses themselves. What I don't see is the 14th forcing states to issue them themselves, because to me SSM and OSM are not "equal". SSM is an entirely new concept, which I do agree with, but only if the State legislatures modify the marriage contract to expand to include it.

Marriage is not a new concept and so long as it is controlled by the state, it is nothing more than a legal contract providing benefits and obligations to the parties. There is no difference between SSM and OSM in terms of the nature of that contract. Per the 14th amendment, it should be applied equally to all citizens of that state. That's the argument for the 14th and it seems to be holding up in the courts. We'll see what SCOTUS does with it fairly soon and then it will be resolved - unless the court reverses itself at some time in the future. Personally, I find that argument persuasive.

Until 20 years ago the concept of two people of the same sex legally marrying was unheard of. There is no precedent for it in any culture, legal custom, or religious tradition. It is a radical departure from the Status Quo which requires the States themselves to modify the contract via the constitutionally proper method of legislation.

And before anyone goes to the Loving case, race as a barrier to marriage is a cultural thing, there are plenty of examples from antiquity to modern times of people of different races marrying, with laws against them being retroactive in nature, not clarifying in nature like current law rewrites to say marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman.

Polygamists have a far better argument when it comes to precedent because the past has seen marriages between multiple partners, even if it hasn't been a tradition or law in European culture.

To me, a change this radical has to happen democratically, not forced by the courts.

The Loving case really does apply for exactly the reasons you cited. The barrier was cultural. So is the barrier to SSM. The reason it was unheard of 20 years ago was because culturally it was unacceptable, not because it requires a change in the contract itself. The only thing which is required to change in the contract is the definition of the partners. There is no other change.

Personally, I think the prohibition against polygamy is also a violation of the 14th and I expect to see those cases start to crop up in the next decade or so. I hope they win. I don't think it is the place of the government to tell people what kind of relationships they have, so long as the parties are competent adults. Which is the standard for all contracts.

The courts historically have been source of such changes. It's their job. The PA laws you find objectionable are the result of the democratic process. Any relief from them will come from the courts.

here is where we disagree. Race and sex/sexuality are two different things entirely. They are only lumped together because proponents of SSM see it as an easy way to get what they want. Gays never faced the systemic exploitation blacks faced in this country. They were oppressed, yes, but if they were white they had the ability to blend into society, were not exploited for labor, and were not treated as chattel.

My issue is not with SSM as a result, but of the process to get there.

To me the issue is that some gays want into mainstream heterosexual culture 100%. They want acceptance. What blacks wanted was to keep their own culture, but not be exploited economically. Blacks want to go to a baker/photographer that caters to the black community, they wouldn't go out and find someone who wouldn't want to work at their wedding, because what's the point of that?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Christians get the same respect they give.

And so do gays, as I have told my friends repeatedly.

 

[Pete7469]

I cannot speak for individual members of the group, but it does seem to me that the LGBT community seeks acceptance and respect from the mainstream population -- 'we're just like you except for the gender of who we love, please treat us the same way you treat each other' or something similar.

Right? Seems reasonable to me.

Do members of the LGBT community who seek goods and services from this who, with every right to do so, oppose certain aspects of their lifestyle and then use the state to hammer those who oppose them into submission serve to further of hinder the acceptance of LGBT in mainstream society?

It's not about "acceptance, respect or tolerance". They are demanding the non-perverted majority of society rejects the concept of normalicy. They want special treatment, not equal rights. They couldn't just keep their business to themselves, everyone else HAS TO KNOW, and you better goddamn well like it because if you even say anything that makes a queer "butthurt" you will be persecuted, fired, run out of business, and even threatened with death.

And the fact that there is even the existence of a group called NAMBLA indicates to me that the next big perversion that the left will force upon us is that sick shit.

 

[PratchettFan]

Not necessarily. But in general that is the case. The thing is, there are no federal laws which apply to these particular cases. They are all based in state laws. Even the marriage cases are based in 14th amendment application to state laws, not the application of federal law (and I know the Constitution is federal, I'm just separating it out here).

I agree with that. In fact, I even agree full faith and credit demands all states recognize marriages from other states, even ones that don't issue SSM licenses themselves. What I don't see is the 14th forcing states to issue them themselves, because to me SSM and OSM are not "equal". SSM is an entirely new concept, which I do agree with, but only if the State legislatures modify the marriage contract to expand to include it.

Marriage is not a new concept and so long as it is controlled by the state, it is nothing more than a legal contract providing benefits and obligations to the parties. There is no difference between SSM and OSM in terms of the nature of that contract. Per the 14th amendment, it should be applied equally to all citizens of that state. That's the argument for the 14th and it seems to be holding up in the courts. We'll see what SCOTUS does with it fairly soon and then it will be resolved - unless the court reverses itself at some time in the future. Personally, I find that argument persuasive.

Until 20 years ago the concept of two people of the same sex legally marrying was unheard of. There is no precedent for it in any culture, legal custom, or religious tradition. It is a radical departure from the Status Quo which requires the States themselves to modify the contract via the constitutionally proper method of legislation.

And before anyone goes to the Loving case, race as a barrier to marriage is a cultural thing, there are plenty of examples from antiquity to modern times of people of different races marrying, with laws against them being retroactive in nature, not clarifying in nature like current law rewrites to say marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman.

Polygamists have a far better argument when it comes to precedent because the past has seen marriages between multiple partners, even if it hasn't been a tradition or law in European culture.

To me, a change this radical has to happen democratically, not forced by the courts.

The Loving case really does apply for exactly the reasons you cited. The barrier was cultural. So is the barrier to SSM. The reason it was unheard of 20 years ago was because culturally it was unacceptable, not because it requires a change in the contract itself. The only thing which is required to change in the contract is the definition of the partners. There is no other change.

Personally, I think the prohibition against polygamy is also a violation of the 14th and I expect to see those cases start to crop up in the next decade or so. I hope they win. I don't think it is the place of the government to tell people what kind of relationships they have, so long as the parties are competent adults. Which is the standard for all contracts.

The courts historically have been source of such changes. It's their job. The PA laws you find objectionable are the result of the democratic process. Any relief from them will come from the courts.

here is where we disagree. Race and sex/sexuality are two different things entirely. They are only lumped together because proponents of SSM see it as an easy way to get what they want. Gays never faced the systemic exploitation blacks faced in this country. They were oppressed, yes, but if they were white they had the ability to blend into society, were not exploited for labor, and were not treated as chattel.

My issue is not with SSM as a result, but of the process to get there.

To me the issue is that some gays want into mainstream heterosexual culture 100%. They want acceptance. What blacks wanted was to keep their own culture, but not be exploited economically. Blacks want to go to a baker/photographer that caters to the black community, they wouldn't go out and find someone who wouldn't want to work at their wedding, because what's the point of that?

Then we are certainly going to disagree. I think you are wrong in just about every respect. I'll concede gays were never slaves as a class. Outside of that, I am in complete disagreement.

 

[martybegan]

I agree with that. In fact, I even agree full faith and credit demands all states recognize marriages from other states, even ones that don't issue SSM licenses themselves. What I don't see is the 14th forcing states to issue them themselves, because to me SSM and OSM are not "equal". SSM is an entirely new concept, which I do agree with, but only if the State legislatures modify the marriage contract to expand to include it.

Marriage is not a new concept and so long as it is controlled by the state, it is nothing more than a legal contract providing benefits and obligations to the parties. There is no difference between SSM and OSM in terms of the nature of that contract. Per the 14th amendment, it should be applied equally to all citizens of that state. That's the argument for the 14th and it seems to be holding up in the courts. We'll see what SCOTUS does with it fairly soon and then it will be resolved - unless the court reverses itself at some time in the future. Personally, I find that argument persuasive.

Until 20 years ago the concept of two people of the same sex legally marrying was unheard of. There is no precedent for it in any culture, legal custom, or religious tradition. It is a radical departure from the Status Quo which requires the States themselves to modify the contract via the constitutionally proper method of legislation.

And before anyone goes to the Loving case, race as a barrier to marriage is a cultural thing, there are plenty of examples from antiquity to modern times of people of different races marrying, with laws against them being retroactive in nature, not clarifying in nature like current law rewrites to say marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman.

Polygamists have a far better argument when it comes to precedent because the past has seen marriages between multiple partners, even if it hasn't been a tradition or law in European culture.

To me, a change this radical has to happen democratically, not forced by the courts.

The Loving case really does apply for exactly the reasons you cited. The barrier was cultural. So is the barrier to SSM. The reason it was unheard of 20 years ago was because culturally it was unacceptable, not because it requires a change in the contract itself. The only thing which is required to change in the contract is the definition of the partners. There is no other change.

Personally, I think the prohibition against polygamy is also a violation of the 14th and I expect to see those cases start to crop up in the next decade or so. I hope they win. I don't think it is the place of the government to tell people what kind of relationships they have, so long as the parties are competent adults. Which is the standard for all contracts.

The courts historically have been source of such changes. It's their job. The PA laws you find objectionable are the result of the democratic process. Any relief from them will come from the courts.

here is where we disagree. Race and sex/sexuality are two different things entirely. They are only lumped together because proponents of SSM see it as an easy way to get what they want. Gays never faced the systemic exploitation blacks faced in this country. They were oppressed, yes, but if they were white they had the ability to blend into society, were not exploited for labor, and were not treated as chattel.

My issue is not with SSM as a result, but of the process to get there.

To me the issue is that some gays want into mainstream heterosexual culture 100%. They want acceptance. What blacks wanted was to keep their own culture, but not be exploited economically. Blacks want to go to a baker/photographer that caters to the black community, they wouldn't go out and find someone who wouldn't want to work at their wedding, because what's the point of that?

Then we are certainly going to disagree. I think you are wrong in just about every respect. I'll concede gays were never slaves as a class. Outside of that, I am in complete disagreement.

Nothing wrong with disagreeing. That seems to be lost on a lot of people recently.

 

[PratchettFan]

Marriage is not a new concept and so long as it is controlled by the state, it is nothing more than a legal contract providing benefits and obligations to the parties. There is no difference between SSM and OSM in terms of the nature of that contract. Per the 14th amendment, it should be applied equally to all citizens of that state. That's the argument for the 14th and it seems to be holding up in the courts. We'll see what SCOTUS does with it fairly soon and then it will be resolved - unless the court reverses itself at some time in the future. Personally, I find that argument persuasive.

Until 20 years ago the concept of two people of the same sex legally marrying was unheard of. There is no precedent for it in any culture, legal custom, or religious tradition. It is a radical departure from the Status Quo which requires the States themselves to modify the contract via the constitutionally proper method of legislation.

And before anyone goes to the Loving case, race as a barrier to marriage is a cultural thing, there are plenty of examples from antiquity to modern times of people of different races marrying, with laws against them being retroactive in nature, not clarifying in nature like current law rewrites to say marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman.

Polygamists have a far better argument when it comes to precedent because the past has seen marriages between multiple partners, even if it hasn't been a tradition or law in European culture.

To me, a change this radical has to happen democratically, not forced by the courts.

The Loving case really does apply for exactly the reasons you cited. The barrier was cultural. So is the barrier to SSM. The reason it was unheard of 20 years ago was because culturally it was unacceptable, not because it requires a change in the contract itself. The only thing which is required to change in the contract is the definition of the partners. There is no other change.

Personally, I think the prohibition against polygamy is also a violation of the 14th and I expect to see those cases start to crop up in the next decade or so. I hope they win. I don't think it is the place of the government to tell people what kind of relationships they have, so long as the parties are competent adults. Which is the standard for all contracts.

The courts historically have been source of such changes. It's their job. The PA laws you find objectionable are the result of the democratic process. Any relief from them will come from the courts.

here is where we disagree. Race and sex/sexuality are two different things entirely. They are only lumped together because proponents of SSM see it as an easy way to get what they want. Gays never faced the systemic exploitation blacks faced in this country. They were oppressed, yes, but if they were white they had the ability to blend into society, were not exploited for labor, and were not treated as chattel.

My issue is not with SSM as a result, but of the process to get there.

To me the issue is that some gays want into mainstream heterosexual culture 100%. They want acceptance. What blacks wanted was to keep their own culture, but not be exploited economically. Blacks want to go to a baker/photographer that caters to the black community, they wouldn't go out and find someone who wouldn't want to work at their wedding, because what's the point of that?

Then we are certainly going to disagree. I think you are wrong in just about every respect. I'll concede gays were never slaves as a class. Outside of that, I am in complete disagreement.

Nothing wrong with disagreeing. That seems to be lost on a lot of people recently.

Nothing at all wrong with it. It's very healthy. If I only listened to people who agreed with me I would never learn any thing.

 

[jillian]

the states can't be trusted with constitutional rights. that's why federal troops had to march black kids into southern schools.

The laws involved in these cases are state laws, not federal laws. And this particular issue is not a Constitutional one.

you understand that the difference between what the states can regulate and the feds can regulate in this area is the same, right?

Not necessarily. But in general that is the case. The thing is, there are no federal laws which apply to these particular cases. They are all based in state laws. Even the marriage cases are based in 14th amendment application to state laws, not the application of federal law (and I know the Constitution is federal, I'm just separating it out here).

I agree with that. In fact, I even agree full faith and credit demands all states recognize marriages from other states, even ones that don't issue SSM licenses themselves. What I don't see is the 14th forcing states to issue them themselves, because to me SSM and OSM are not "equal". SSM is an entirely new concept, which I do agree with, but only if the State legislatures modify the marriage contract to expand to include it.

Marriage is not a new concept and so long as it is controlled by the state, it is nothing more than a legal contract providing benefits and obligations to the parties. There is no difference between SSM and OSM in terms of the nature of that contract. Per the 14th amendment, it should be applied equally to all citizens of that state. That's the argument for the 14th and it seems to be holding up in the courts. We'll see what SCOTUS does with it fairly soon and then it will be resolved - unless the court reverses itself at some time in the future. Personally, I find that argument persuasive.

again, not correct. you seem to want to ignore or do not understand constitutional caselaw on this issue. See, Loving v Virginia which states that marriage is a fundamental right and before the states or congress can abridge a fundamental right, there has to be a substantial governmental interest.

 

[PratchettFan]

The laws involved in these cases are state laws, not federal laws. And this particular issue is not a Constitutional one.

you understand that the difference between what the states can regulate and the feds can regulate in this area is the same, right?

Not necessarily. But in general that is the case. The thing is, there are no federal laws which apply to these particular cases. They are all based in state laws. Even the marriage cases are based in 14th amendment application to state laws, not the application of federal law (and I know the Constitution is federal, I'm just separating it out here).

I agree with that. In fact, I even agree full faith and credit demands all states recognize marriages from other states, even ones that don't issue SSM licenses themselves. What I don't see is the 14th forcing states to issue them themselves, because to me SSM and OSM are not "equal". SSM is an entirely new concept, which I do agree with, but only if the State legislatures modify the marriage contract to expand to include it.

Marriage is not a new concept and so long as it is controlled by the state, it is nothing more than a legal contract providing benefits and obligations to the parties. There is no difference between SSM and OSM in terms of the nature of that contract. Per the 14th amendment, it should be applied equally to all citizens of that state. That's the argument for the 14th and it seems to be holding up in the courts. We'll see what SCOTUS does with it fairly soon and then it will be resolved - unless the court reverses itself at some time in the future. Personally, I find that argument persuasive.

again, not correct. you seem to want to ignore or do not understand constitutional caselaw on this issue. See, Loving v Virginia which states that marriage is a fundamental right and before the states or congress can abridge a fundamental right, there has to be a substantial governmental interest.

The argument being used in the current cases is that the 14th amendment requires equal application of the state law. There is no such thing as a federal marriage license.