The use of the 14th Amendment by gays for gay marriage can't be used

[kaz]

You mean like we heterosexuals have demanded recognition for our marriages through establishing Civil Law on the matter and then taken money from homosexuals in the form of taxes to pay for that recognition?


>>>>

Only 1.7% of Americans are homosexual.

LOL...and that is supported by what?

The Center for Disease Control estimates that 4% of men have sex with men. Of course that would include bi-sexuals. I don't know what the homo rate is. You've probably seen that stat, are you disagreeing with it? I have no pony in the race, I don't care who other people have sex with, just who I do. Just asking.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I agree. On the other hand they shouldn't be able to demand recognition and other people's money for it.

You mean like we heterosexuals have demanded recognition for our marriages through establishing Civil Law on the matter and then taken money from homosexuals in the form of taxes to pay for that recognition?


>>>>

Only 1.7% of Americans are homosexual.

In your opinion, what it the cutoff percentage that United States Citizen have to reach before they can expect equal treatment under the laws?


>>>>

 

[Bass v 2.0]

You mean like we heterosexuals have demanded recognition for our marriages through establishing Civil Law on the matter and then taken money from homosexuals in the form of taxes to pay for that recognition?


>>>>

Only 1.7% of Americans are homosexual.

In your opinion, what it the cutoff percentage that United States Citizen have to reach before they can expect equal treatment under the laws?


>>>>

Gays are not being treated unequal under the law since there are no laws that specifically treat homosexuals unequally just as there are no laws that specifically give heterosexuals more "rights" and privileges than homosexuals, you can't cite one.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Only 1.7% of Americans are homosexual.

In your opinion, what it the cutoff percentage that United States Citizen have to reach before they can expect equal treatment under the laws?


>>>>

Gays are not being treated unequal under the law since there are no laws that specifically treat homosexuals unequally just as there are no laws that specifically give heterosexuals more "rights" and privileges than homosexuals, you can't cite one.

The difference in treatment is based on the gender makeup of the couples.

While everyone with any honesty and common sense knows the purpose of the law is to discriminate against homosexuals, it's true that in the letter of the law the basis is gender.


BTW - since you pointed out that homosexuals were only "1.7%" (your figure), what is the cutoff percentage that United States Citizen have to reach before they can expect equal treatment under the laws?


>>>>

 

[Hum Dinger]

It may not be the Constitution, but I'd say that the declaration of Independance pretty much covers tha question of gay marriage:

"they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness

Not allowing gays to marry certainly violates their right to liberty and the persuit of happiness.

 

[kaz]

You mean like we heterosexuals have demanded recognition for our marriages through establishing Civil Law on the matter and then taken money from homosexuals in the form of taxes to pay for that recognition?


>>>>

Only 1.7% of Americans are homosexual.

In your opinion, what it the cutoff percentage that United States Citizen have to reach before they can expect equal treatment under the laws?


>>>>

Equal treatment is literal not formulamatic. Gays and straights can both marry in any state the exact same people. Saying that because they want something different then me means they don't have the right that I do is preposterous.

 

[kaz]

It may not be the Constitution, but I'd say that the declaration of Independance pretty much covers tha question of gay marriage:

"they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness

Not allowing gays to marry certainly violates their right to liberty and the persuit of happiness.

I would be thrilled if government would just leave me the fuck alone. Gays can actually live together and live their lives as they see fit. That their right to pursue happiness requires that they get government recognition, a piece of paper and payoff for their relationship because they can't be happy without government validation and money is ridiculous. They can "pursue" happiness, they cannot "demand" it.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Only 1.7% of Americans are homosexual.

In your opinion, what it the cutoff percentage that United States Citizen have to reach before they can expect equal treatment under the laws?


>>>>

Equal treatment is literal not formulamatic. Gays and straights can both marry in any state the exact same people. Saying that because they want something different then me means they don't have the right that I do is preposterous.

That logic was attempted by the State of Virginia in Loving v. Virginia. Let's check the logic be switching the basis "Coloreds and white can both marry. The law says colored can marry coloreds and whites can marry whites and saying that because they want something different than me means they don't have the right that I do is preposterous". Yes the State made the claim that because Colored were barred from marrying whites and that Whites were barred from marrying Colored, that they were being treated equally under the law.

Both race and gender are biological conditions, the argument didn't work on race and more and more people don't see it working based on gender either.


>>>>

 

[kaz]

In your opinion, what it the cutoff percentage that United States Citizen have to reach before they can expect equal treatment under the laws?


>>>>

Equal treatment is literal not formulamatic. Gays and straights can both marry in any state the exact same people. Saying that because they want something different then me means they don't have the right that I do is preposterous.

That logic was attempted by the State of Virginia in Loving v. Virginia. Let's check the logic be switching the basis "Coloreds and white can both marry. The law says colored can marry coloreds and whites can marry whites and saying that because they want something different than me means they don't have the right that I do is preposterous". Yes the State made the claim that because Colored were barred from marrying whites and that Whites were barred from marrying Colored, that they were being treated equally under the law.

Both race and gender are biological conditions, the argument didn't work on race and more and more people don't see it working based on gender either.


>>>>

Your strategy is to take the words of the Constitution and parse them so the courts can dictate whatever you think is "fair" is what the Constitution said. I think it's our job to fight for it in the legislatures. My wife is Korean, my ass is white. But no, interracial marriage isn't in the Constitution. The Federal government wasn't created to be the arbiter of fair. If you want it to do that, it's a living document. And it even says how to alter it. 2/3, 2/3 and 3/4. It does not say it can be altered by 5/9.

I'm a lot more comfortable with the idea that if I object to the morality of my State I'm free to move to another one then I am with allowing the Federal government to decree it's morality everywhere leaving me no choice anywhere.

 

[Texanmike]

In your opinion, what it the cutoff percentage that United States Citizen have to reach before they can expect equal treatment under the laws?


>>>>

Equal treatment is literal not formulamatic. Gays and straights can both marry in any state the exact same people. Saying that because they want something different then me means they don't have the right that I do is preposterous.

That logic was attempted by the State of Virginia in Loving v. Virginia. Let's check the logic be switching the basis "Coloreds and white can both marry. The law says colored can marry coloreds and whites can marry whites and saying that because they want something different than me means they don't have the right that I do is preposterous". Yes the State made the claim that because Colored were barred from marrying whites and that Whites were barred from marrying Colored, that they were being treated equally under the law.

Both race and gender are biological conditions, the argument didn't work on race and more and more people don't see it working based on gender either.


>>>>

Your argument is not the same. Separate but equal was struck down in the courts long ago so saying "we're giving you A and we're giving you B and we're determining that A = B so you are equal". That does not work. However, saying "you may marry someone of the opposite sex and you may marry someone of the opposite sex" is equal. Saying "you can marry someone who is no closer to your first cousins" is inherently the same argument.

Mike

 

[Texanmike]

It may not be the Constitution, but I'd say that the declaration of Independance pretty much covers tha question of gay marriage:

"they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness

Not allowing gays to marry certainly violates their right to liberty and the persuit of happiness.

The only problem with that is that the DoI does not carry with it the weight of law. It was a declaration of our independence not a declaration of our laws.

Mike

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Equal treatment is literal not formulamatic. Gays and straights can both marry in any state the exact same people. Saying that because they want something different then me means they don't have the right that I do is preposterous.

Incorrect.

If two men apply for a marriage license in a state that does not recognize same-sex marriage, the application will be denied. That’s the Constitutional violation, because the state has no rational basis for doing so. Since licenses are issued one per couple, not two for each member of the couple, the same-sex couple will be unable to present a license to a designated authority to perform the wedding.

To paraphrase Romer: this the states can not do. To exclude access to a state’s marriage laws from a particular class of persons with no rational basis is a violation of the 14th Amendment.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Equal treatment is literal not formulamatic. Gays and straights can both marry in any state the exact same people. Saying that because they want something different then me means they don't have the right that I do is preposterous.

Incorrect.

If two men apply for a marriage license in a state that does not recognize same-sex marriage, the application will be denied. That’s the Constitutional violation, because the state has no rational basis for doing so. Since licenses are issued one per couple, not two for each member of the couple, the same-sex couple will be unable to present a license to a designated authority to perform the wedding.

To paraphrase Romer: this the states can not do. To exclude access to a state’s marriage laws from a particular class of persons with no rational basis is a violation of the 14th Amendment.

It is not unconstitutional, they can go to another state that allows it and get one, the federal government cannot force states to do anything.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

In your opinion, what it the cutoff percentage that United States Citizen have to reach before they can expect equal treatment under the laws?


>>>>

Gays are not being treated unequal under the law since there are no laws that specifically treat homosexuals unequally just as there are no laws that specifically give heterosexuals more "rights" and privileges than homosexuals, you can't cite one.

The difference in treatment is based on the gender makeup of the couples.

While everyone with any honesty and common sense knows the purpose of the law is to discriminate against homosexuals, it's true that in the letter of the law the basis is gender.


BTW - since you pointed out that homosexuals were only "1.7%" (your figure), what is the cutoff percentage that United States Citizen have to reach before they can expect equal treatment under the laws?


>>>>

BS, when the laws defining marriage were created there was no intentional agenda to discriminate against gays and thats because homosexuality wasn't promoted and accepted like it is now, only recently with homosexuals pushing their agenda that its become an issue. The claim by gays is that they should have everything the "same" like heterosexuals but their argument fails because homosexuality isn't the same as heterosexuality and heterosexuals have no laws that specifically give them more rights than gays.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Equal treatment is literal not formulamatic. Gays and straights can both marry in any state the exact same people. Saying that because they want something different then me means they don't have the right that I do is preposterous.

Incorrect.

If two men apply for a marriage license in a state that does not recognize same-sex marriage, the application will be denied. That’s the Constitutional violation, because the state has no rational basis for doing so. Since licenses are issued one per couple, not two for each member of the couple, the same-sex couple will be unable to present a license to a designated authority to perform the wedding.

To paraphrase Romer: this the states can not do. To exclude access to a state’s marriage laws from a particular class of persons with no rational basis is a violation of the 14th Amendment.

It is not unconstitutional, they can go to another state that allows it and get one, the federal government cannot force states to do anything.

Did not the federal government strike down discrimination in terms of Civil Marriage? There were multiple states at the time of Loving v. Virginia that still did not allow interracial marriage.

Colored people could move to another State could they not?



>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Gays are not being treated unequal under the law since there are no laws that specifically treat homosexuals unequally just as there are no laws that specifically give heterosexuals more "rights" and privileges than homosexuals, you can't cite one.

The difference in treatment is based on the gender makeup of the couples.

While everyone with any honesty and common sense knows the purpose of the law is to discriminate against homosexuals, it's true that in the letter of the law the basis is gender.


BTW - since you pointed out that homosexuals were only "1.7%" (your figure), what is the cutoff percentage that United States Citizen have to reach before they can expect equal treatment under the laws?


>>>>

BS, when the laws defining marriage were created there was no intentional agenda to discriminate against gays and thats because homosexuality wasn't promoted and accepted like it is now, only recently with homosexuals pushing their agenda that its become an issue. The claim by gays is that they should have everything the "same" like heterosexuals but their argument fails because homosexuality isn't the same as heterosexuality and heterosexuals have no laws that specifically give them more rights than gays.

1. When the laws were changed (I'm thinking DOMA and the slew of laws passed in 2000 and 2004) there was every intention of denying Same-sex Civil Marriage to homosexuals. I lived in Viriginia when our Constitutional Amendment (15A) to define Civil Marriage and deny any semblance of marriage (i.e. Civil Unions) was passed in 2004 and the VERY ARGUMENT USED WAS TO DENY HOMOSEXUALS ACCESS TO CIVIL MARRIAGE. Claiming it wasn't is an outright lie.

2. Yet those very laws do give special rights to heterosexuals. A heterosexual man can marry a woman (if she agrees), yet a lesbian is denied equal treatment under the law because (in Virginia) she is not allowed to marry a woman (if she agrees). Heterosexuals have the right in this State to marry a consenting adult where mutual attraction exists. Homosexuals do not have that right in this State.


>>>>

 

[Texanmike]

Equal treatment is literal not formulamatic. Gays and straights can both marry in any state the exact same people. Saying that because they want something different then me means they don't have the right that I do is preposterous.

Incorrect.

If two men apply for a marriage license in a state that does not recognize same-sex marriage, the application will be denied. That’s the Constitutional violation, because the state has no rational basis for doing so. Since licenses are issued one per couple, not two for each member of the couple, the same-sex couple will be unable to present a license to a designated authority to perform the wedding.

To paraphrase Romer: this the states can not do. To exclude access to a state’s marriage laws from a particular class of persons with no rational basis is a violation of the 14th Amendment.

It is either in the Constitution or its not. Rationality has no bearing on Constitutionality. If you were told otherwise, you were lied to.


Mike

 

[Bass v 2.0]

The difference in treatment is based on the gender makeup of the couples.

While everyone with any honesty and common sense knows the purpose of the law is to discriminate against homosexuals, it's true that in the letter of the law the basis is gender.


BTW - since you pointed out that homosexuals were only "1.7%" (your figure), what is the cutoff percentage that United States Citizen have to reach before they can expect equal treatment under the laws?


>>>>

BS, when the laws defining marriage were created there was no intentional agenda to discriminate against gays and thats because homosexuality wasn't promoted and accepted like it is now, only recently with homosexuals pushing their agenda that its become an issue. The claim by gays is that they should have everything the "same" like heterosexuals but their argument fails because homosexuality isn't the same as heterosexuality and heterosexuals have no laws that specifically give them more rights than gays.

1. When the laws were changed (I'm thinking DOMA and the slew of laws passed in 2000 and 2004) there was every intention of denying Same-sex Civil Marriage to homosexuals. I lived in Viriginia when our Constitutional Amendment (15A) to define Civil Marriage and deny any semblance of marriage (i.e. Civil Unions) was passed in 2004 and the VERY ARGUMENT USED WAS TO DENY HOMOSEXUALS ACCESS TO CIVIL MARRIAGE. Claiming it wasn't is an outright lie.

2. Yet those very laws do give special rights to heterosexuals. A heterosexual man can marry a woman (if she agrees), yet a lesbian is denied equal treatment under the law because (in Virginia) she is not allowed to marry a woman (if she agrees). Heterosexuals have the right in this State to marry a consenting adult where mutual attraction exists. Homosexuals do not have that right in this State.


>>>>

There is written into the language of *NO* law that heterosexuals specifically have more rights than homosexuals, Not all heterosexuals can marry, a brother can't marry his sister and a mother can't marry a son.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There is written into the language of *NO* law that heterosexuals specifically have more rights than homosexuals, Not all heterosexuals can marry, a brother can't marry his sister and a mother can't marry a son.

What you refuse to understand is that a law disallowing a brother to marry a sister is applied equally to all; if such a law were applied to Asian Americans only, for example, there may be an equal access violation.

That’s the issue with laws prohibiting same-sex marriage – a particular group is singled out for exclusion.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

There is written into the language of *NO* law that heterosexuals specifically have more rights than homosexuals, Not all heterosexuals can marry, a brother can't marry his sister and a mother can't marry a son.

What you refuse to understand is that a law disallowing a brother to marry a sister is applied equally to all; if such a law were applied to Asian Americans only, for example, there may be an equal access violation.

That’s the issue with laws prohibiting same-sex marriage – a particular group is singled out for exclusion.

With incestuous relationships a particular group of people are also singled out, what's your point? There is no way to make a laws apply to everyone.