[dcolton]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The similarity is a Constitutional one. Principally under the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause, and the privileges and immunities clause. Both apply to all US citizens, and don't logically exclude US Citizens just because they happen to be gay. That's really all that is being pointed out.

The 14th amendment has nothing to do with homosexuals. YOu guys want to take loving vs virginia out of context and try to apply it to lifestyle rather than race. So, the similarity is not a constitutional one. There is no similarity...basically it is PC racism where white gays are upset because they think a lowly black person has more rights than a white gay man. There is no comparison. It is exploitation.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Here we go...trying to justify same sex marriage by exploiting blacks.

I find it insulting. Absolutely insulting that same-sex marriage advocates have the audacity to use the plight of blacks in an effort to legitimize their version of values (or lack thereof).

There is no comparison between a race of people that were bound by slavery, racism and discrimination as well as a prejudice that has crippled the success of blacks even today. How can you compare the history of blacks and the institutionalized racism that existed to a faction who basis their classification on who they sleep with at night.

Absolutely insulting and boderline racist.

Because being born black and being born gay ARE THE EXACT SAME THING.

Being treated different by society based on an inherent biological trait is the same for blacks and homosexuals.

Yes, the experience blacks have had due to institionalized
slavery in the country is far worse than the hostility faced
by homosexuals. But the two group's experience within the scope
of legislation--especially legilsation dealing with marriage rights--
is very similar.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by dcmacdaddy:
Because being born black and being born gay ARE THE EXACT SAME THING.

Being treated different by society based on an inherent biological trait is the same for blacks and homosexuals.

Yes, the experience blacks have had due to institionalized
slavery in the country is far worse than the hostility faced
by homosexuals. But the two group's experience within the scope
of legislation--especially legilsation dealing with marriage rights--
is very similar.

Absolutely not! There is no comparison in any way, shape or form. If same sex advocates had any merit to their case for marriage, they wouls not need to exploit blacks and attack the institution of marriage.

Edit: Almost forgot. You are not born gay. There is absolutely no proof of it and is, as stated earlier, a myth perpetrated by the gay left to advacne their agenda.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by dcolton:
The 14th amendment has nothing to do with homosexuals.

You're right; I believe it has something to do with Americans, whether they're black, white, gay, straight, male, female, etc.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by dcolton:
The 14th amendment has nothing to do with homosexuals. YOu guys want to take loving vs virginia out of context and try to apply it to lifestyle rather than race. So, the similarity is not a constitutional one. There is no similarity...basically it is PC racism where white gays are upset because they think a lowly black person has more rights than a white gay man. There is no comparison. It is exploitation.

Constitutional law takes pretty much everything out of context. That's how legal doctrines evolve.

I'll give you an example: You have heard of Brown v. Board of Education? That's the case that desegregated public schools. The foundation of that case is the idea of discreet and insular minorities who require the courts to protect them because they are disadvantaged in the political process.

But do you know what case that idea came from? It came from a case called Carolene Products. Carolene Products was about adulterated milk. It had nothing to do with race at all.



In fact, the 14th Amendment has always been about more than just race. A few months ago I read part of the legislative history. The fact that it had implications beyond race was well understood by the framers. They explicitly discussed its potential impact on sufferage and property rights for women, and in fact today it is routinely used in that context.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Constitutional law takes pretty much everything out of context. That's how legal doctrines evolve.

I'll give you an example: You have heard of Brown v. Board of Education? That's the case that desegregated public schools. The foundation of that case is the idea of discreet and insular minorities who require the courts to protect them because they are disadvantaged in the political process.

But do you know what case that idea came from? It came from a case called Carolene Products. Carolene Products was about adulterated milk. It had nothing to do with race at all.



In fact, the 14th Amendment has always been about more than just race. A few months ago I read part of the legislative history. The fact that it had implications beyond race was well understood by the framers. They explicitly discussed its potential impact on sufferage and property rights for women, and in fact today it is routinely used in that context.

Then why is there a 19th Amendment?

The truth of the matter is, people try to pervert the constitution to fit their agenda. They will use single words to try to justify their case.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Then why is there a 19th Amendment?

The truth of the matter is, people try to pervert the constitution to fit their agenda. They will use single words to try to justify their case.

The 19th Amendment specifically related to voting -- mainly to counteract mistaken constitutional adjudication that denied women their right to vote.

Or are you suggesting that while men have inalienable rights, women don't?

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally posted by dcolton:
The truth of the matter is, people try to pervert the constitution to fit their agenda. They will use single words to try to justify their case.

Like the word "Equality" for instance?

[dcolton]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The 19th Amendment specifically related to voting -- mainly to counteract mistaken constitutional adjudication that denied women their right to vote.

Or are you suggesting that while men have inalienable rights, women don't?

No, I am suggesting that the 19th amendment is proof that the 14th anmendment isn't an all encompassing amendment to be used at the liesure of any faction that chooses a lifestyle.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
Like the word "Equality" for instance?

sure, why not. If we don't keep our gaurd up, equality will turn into special rights.

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally posted by dcolton:
sure, why not. If we don't keep our gaurd up, equality will turn into special rights.

ROFL

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Agreed. This is the only reasonable solution. Marriage should be left to the domain of religion. Remember, though, that there are Christian churches (among others, I'm sure) that are willing to perform same-sex marriages.

Just to go back to this for a moment. Some churches are willing to perform same-sex marriages, but then again, one of my churches (the Uni. Univ.) will perform a 3-way marriage, and has done so in the past... though, of course, it's not recognized by the state. In fact, one of the societies I belong to, who are also recognized as a "religion" by the state, would also do the ceremony.

Just goes to show, you can always find a religion that will agree to anything.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by dcolton:
No, I am suggesting that the 19th amendment is proof that the 14th anmendment isn't an all encompassing amendment to be used at the liesure of any faction that chooses a lifestyle.

OK, let me explain this sloooooowlllyyy.

A basic principle of the US Constitution is that the Constitution doesn't grant individual rights. The rights are preexisting. They are alienable.

All the Constitution does is protect rights that are already there from frail humans whose governments might not respect as it should.

Women always had equal rights. But their government didn't recognize them. The 14th Amendment should have cleared that up, as the Reconstruction Congress that proposed it discussed. But it didn't, just as the 14th Amendment didn't clear up all equal rights issues for blacks. Courts interpreted the 14th Amendment wrongly as not applying to women.

That's why the 19th Amendment was needed. It overturned all those wrong opinions and statutes that kept women from enjoying their equal rights as American citizens.

[wedgie!]

it's totally shocking that marriage in the US has drifted so far from the correct, god-given definition of marriage. I propose a thorough revamping of the marriage laws in the US to bring them fully in line with biblical principles:

A. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5.)

B. Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chronicles 11:21)

C. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed (Deut 22:13-21)

D. Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh. 10:30)

E. Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any State, nor any state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)

F. If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen. 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)

G. In lieu of marriage, if there are no acceptable men in your town, it is required that you get your dad drunk and have sex with him (even if he had previously offered you up as a sex toy to men young and old), tag-teaming with any sisters you may have. Of course, this rule applies only if you are female. (Gen 19:31-36)


credit where it's due


You bible thumpers really crack me up! In all the threads on this board nobody has ever given a good explanation of how alllowing gays to marry will "cheapen" the institute of marriage, bring about chaos and destruction and cause the end of the world. Nah...just mention "slippery slopes" and hope everyone changes their opinions. Arseholes

[dcolton]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
OK, let me explain this sloooooowlllyyy.

A basic principle of the US Constitution is that the Constitution doesn't grant individual rights. The rights are preexisting. They are alienable.

All the Constitution does is protect rights that are already there from frail humans whose governments might not respect as it should.

Women always had equal rights. But their government didn't recognize them. The 14th Amendment should have cleared that up, as the Reconstruction Congress that proposed it discussed. But it didn't, just as the 14th Amendment didn't clear up all equal rights issues for blacks. Courts interpreted the 14th Amendment wrongly as not applying to women.

That's why the 19th Amendment was needed. It overturned all those wrong opinions and statutes that kept women from enjoying their equal rights as American citizens.

First of all, I don't need the condenscending attitude. Just because you are a 'budding' lawyer, it doesn't mean your interpretation is fact or even correct.

This is the typical tactic of the gay left, to misinterpret and misrepresent law and the constitution to manipulate Americans to accept their agenda. The truth, choice does not afford special rights to any citizen. That is what all of this boils down to...choice. Perhaps they should include cause and effect in your constitutional law class, it would make it easier for you to understand why making a choice doesn't equal special rights and privleges

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Just goes to show, you can always find a religion that will agree to anything.

Exactly. However, the church to which I linked (the United Church of Canada) is the largest Protestant denomination in Canada.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by wedgie!:
it's totally shocking that marriage in the US has drifted so far from the correct, god-given definition of marriage. I propose a thorough revamping of the marriage laws in the US to bring them fully in line with biblical principles:

A. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5.)

B. Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chronicles 11:21)

C. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed (Deut 22:13-21)

D. Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh. 10:30)

E. Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any State, nor any state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)

F. If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen. 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)

G. In lieu of marriage, if there are no acceptable men in your town, it is required that you get your dad drunk and have sex with him (even if he had previously offered you up as a sex toy to men young and old), tag-teaming with any sisters you may have. Of course, this rule applies only if you are female. (Gen 19:31-36)


credit where it's due


You bible thumpers really crack me up! In all the threads on this board nobody has ever given a good explanation of how alllowing gays to marry will "cheapen" the institute of marriage, bring about chaos and destruction and cause the end of the world. Nah...just mention "slippery slopes" and hope everyone changes their opinions. Arseholes

Seems to me as if you are the only person thumping the bible. I wonder...same sex marriage was struck down overwhelmingly in 12 states. Do you think everyone that voted against same sex marriafe and for family is Christian? Or are Christians just a scape goat for you?

Only 26% of Americans attend chuirch on a regular basis. Christians are not that strong of a voting block and they are not the only ones who voted against the Gay left. perhaps you are focusing on the wrong people in an effort to lash out at God>?

[wedgie!]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Only 26% of Americans attend chuirch on a regular basis. Christians are not that strong of a voting block and they are not the only ones who voted against the Gay left. perhaps you are focusing on the wrong people in an effort to lash out at God>?

I'm the only one thumping the bible? Please!

Originally posted by dcolton:
I see it as an effort to redefine family...corrupt it if you will. I see it as an attempt to legetimize a lifestyle to our children. I see it as an affront to God and basic morality. Gays have the right to marry under the legal definition of marriage. No rights are abridged under the constitution.

Are you seriously suggesting that the majority of objections to gay marriages in the US are not based on religious beliefs? Yeah, ok... Why are you not up in arms about divorce? Surely that's and affront to god too?

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Exactly. However, the church to which I linked (the United Church of Canada) is the largest Protestant denomination in Canada.

True, but the Uni. Univ. isn't exactly small potatoes. Here in Knoxville (of all places) we have the 6th largest congregation. Strange, but true.

Hell, my church would probably consider marrying a person to their pet... though, it wouldn't go beyond consideration.

[cpt kangarooski]

dcolton--

First of all, I don't need the condenscending attitude.

I would disagree; your posts clearly indicate that you should be condescended to.

Just because you are a 'budding' lawyer, it doesn't mean your interpretation is fact or even correct.

That's true. However, that interpretation is fact, and is correct.

The truth, choice does not afford special rights to any citizen.

But surely choice doesn't preclude equal rights. And surely some choices are different than others. For example, religious choice is strongly protected from discrimination, but it's still a choice. IMO it's clear that sexual orientation is a similar choice in that it is strongly personal and should not subject the person who makes it to discrimination.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
True, but the Uni. Univ. isn't exactly small potatoes. Here in Knoxville (of all places) we have the 6th largest congregation. Strange, but true.

Hell, my church would probably consider marrying a person to their pet... though, it wouldn't go beyond consideration.

Is Uni. Univ. a schism of the United Church?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by dcolton:
First of all, I don't need the condenscending attitude. Just because you are a 'budding' lawyer, it doesn't mean your interpretation is fact or even correct.

This is the typical tactic of the gay left, to misinterpret and misrepresent law and the constitution to manipulate Americans to accept their agenda. The truth, choice does not afford special rights to any citizen. That is what all of this boils down to...choice. Perhaps they should include cause and effect in your constitutional law class, it would make it easier for you to understand why making a choice doesn't equal special rights and privleges

That's me. Part of the "gay left."

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Is Uni. Univ. a schism of the United Church?

Schism? No, the Unitarian Universalist Church is quite different.

http://www.uua.org/aboutuua/principles.html

From what I understand, the United Church is more closely associated with the Lutheran faith.

Actually, at my church, there are more non-Christians than Christians (quite a few Reformed Jews and Pagans). They hold almost all beliefs as equal... we even have a few Luciferians and Setites that pop in from time to time. Interesting people.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
That's me. Part of the "gay left."

Just curious, I'm sure you've answered this before but I can't remember what you said, are you a member of the LCR (Log Cabin Republicans)?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Just curious, I'm sure you've answered this before but I can't remember what you said, are you a member of the LCR (Log Cabin Republicans)?

I'm not a member of any organized political group.

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I'm not a member of any organized political group.

i.e. he is a Democrat.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I'm not a member of any organized political group.

Just wondering.

For the last several months I've been sending them contributions and they seem to be a respectable group.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Just wondering.

For the last several months I've been sending them contributions and they seem to be a respectable group.

I don't know. My last contact with them was several years ago in the Arlington chapter. I found I didn't have a whole lot in common with them, but I only went to about one meeting. The problem with law school is it tends to suck all your life up, especially if you have a job as well. Unfortunately, I don't think this will get much better once I join a firm.

Also, I find the longer I have been out, the less interested I am in exclusively gay anything. It's sort of a phase that people get over, especially if they meet someone and settle down. If I had the time to get involved in politics, I'd probably just get involved with the mainstream party.

[OldManMac]

Such fear. So sad!

[Athens]

Crips, I just posted this post this morning, 78 replys to read bah thats alot.

[spauldingg]

Originally posted by Athens:
Crips, I just posted this post this morning, 78 replys to read bah thats alot.

And Zimphire hasn't even posted yet.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Schism? No, the Unitarian Universalist Church is quite different.

http://www.uua.org/aboutuua/principles.html

From what I understand, the United Church is more closely associated with the Lutheran faith.

That's interesting. I've been looking into churches in the city I'm moving to (Windsor, Ontario). There is an emerging Uni. Univ. congregation there that is currently using a United church as it's meeting place.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
That's interesting. I've been looking into churches in the city I'm moving to (Windsor, Ontario). There is an emerging Uni. Univ. congregation there that is currently using a United church as it's meeting place.

That's not too unusual. I used to belong to a Syrian Orthodox juristiction who met in a Lutheran church. Most protestant and Orthodox churches are quite supportive of other denominations.

[strictlyplaid]

Originally posted by dcolton:
This is the typical tactic of the gay left, to misinterpret and misrepresent law and the constitution to manipulate Americans to accept their agenda.

Well, the thing about the law in general (and I think Simey more or less already pointed this out - correct me if I'm wrong) is that the text usually doesn't speak for itself - it's always interpreted by whoever is in power at the moment, and hence (though the text sets some broad boundaries) there's always a lot of leeway as to what the Constitution or any law really says.

Take the first amendment with respect to the establishment and free exercise (of religion) clauses. Over time, the interpretation of that section has changed drastically precisely because it isn't completely clear what it means to "establish" a state religion or prevent the "free exercise of religion" by private religious groups. There's certainly nothing in the amendment that tells us what constitutes "establishment."

So identifying the "misinterpret[ation]" of the constitution as a "tactic of the gay left" is wrong, unless I also get to categorize George W. Bush's rather narrow interpretation of what it means to establish a state religion as a deliberate misinterpretation that the religious right have been employing for years.

In other words... the law is a battleground because texts usually don't have 100% unambiguous meanings, so we just have to accept that leftists and rightists are going to interpret the words to support their policies and that the Supreme Courts' decisions are, more or less, political actions and not mere scholastic judgments.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by strictlyplaid:
Well, the thing about the law in general (and I think Simey more or less already pointed this out - correct me if I'm wrong) is that the text usually doesn't speak for itself - it's always interpreted by whoever is in power at the moment, and hence (though the text sets some broad boundaries) there's always a lot of leeway as to what the Constitution or any law really says.

Take the first amendment with respect to the establishment and free exercise (of religion) clauses. Over time, the interpretation of that section has changed drastically precisely because it isn't completely clear what it means to "establish" a state religion or prevent the "free exercise of religion" by private religious groups. There's certainly nothing in the amendment that tells us what constitutes "establishment."

So identifying the "misinterpret[ation]" of the constitution as a "tactic of the gay left" is wrong, unless I also get to categorize George W. Bush's rather narrow interpretation of what it means to establish a state religion as a deliberate misinterpretation that the religious right have been employing for years.

In other words... the law is a battleground because texts usually don't have 100% unambiguous meanings, so we just have to accept that leftists and rightists are going to interpret the words to support their policies and that the Supreme Courts' decisions are, more or less, political actions and not mere scholastic judgments.

The text does speak for itself. We run into problems when one faction wants the text to take on a different meaning. Let's take loving v virginia. the gay left is so set on creating legal precedence, they are molesting the opinion of the court and misleading the American people by purposely misinterpreting the text to encompass homosexuality.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by dcolton:
The text does speak for itself. We run into problems when one faction wants the text to take on a different meaning. Let's take loving v virginia. the gay left is so set on creating legal precedence, they are molesting the opinion of the court and misleading the American people by purposely misinterpreting the text to encompass homosexuality.

Please find the holding of Loving v. Virginia in the explicit text of the Constitution. Specifically, find the words in the Constitution that say that marriage is a fundamental right, and that states cannot criminalize marriages between blacks and whites (which is what the narrow holding of Loving says).

You won't be able to do it, because Loving itself is an extrapolation of constitutional opinions from other cases. It's a classic example of constitutional jurisprudence in that it barely mentions the text of the Constitution, and the text of the Constitution certainly doesn't contain the words of Loving.

At the time Loving was handed down, in 1967, I believe 13 states thought it was crystal clear that states had the constitutional right to criminalize interracial marriage. People using words every bit as outraged as yours swore up and down that the Court was perverting the Constitution. In fact, if you go back and take a look at what was written, the emotions were eerily similar.

Which, at the end of the day, is what I think bothers you.

[strictlyplaid]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Please find the holding of Loving v. Virginia in the explicit text of the Constitution. Specifically, find the words in the Constitution that say that marriage is a fundamental right, and that states cannot criminalize marriages between blacks and whites (which is what the narrow holding of Loving says).

Quite right, the decision in Loving was formed on the basis of what the judges believed the Reconstruction-era amendments (specifically the 14th if I'm recalling correctly) to mean. There's nary a word in there about interracial marriages or whether states can or cannot prohibit them.

It's just basic jurisprudence, and it existed a long time before "the gay agenda" was on anyone's radar. But because the law is a battleground, certainly activists of all stripes -- including conservative ones, for instance in the 1930s in reaction to the New Deal -- will actively pursue political agendas in the legal system.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Please find the holding of Loving v. Virginia in the explicit text of the Constitution. Specifically, find the words in the Constitution that say that marriage is a fundamental right, and that states cannot criminalize marriages between blacks and whites (which is what the narrow holding of Loving says).

You won't be able to do it, because Loving itself is an extrapolation of constitutional opinions from other cases. It's a classic example of constitutional jurisprudence in that it barely mentions the text of the Constitution, and the text of the Constitution certainly doesn't contain the words of Loving.

At the time Loving was handed down, in 1967, I believe 13 states thought it was crystal clear that states had the constitutional right to criminalize interracial marriage. People using words every bit as outraged as yours swore up and down that the Court was perverting the Constitution. In fact, if you go back and take a look at what was written, the emotions were eerily similar.

Which, at the end of the day, is what I think bothers you.

What bothers me is the assertion of gay people that believe they deserve special reights because blacks are allowed to marry whites.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally posted by dcolton:
What bothers me is the assertion of gay people that believe they deserve special reights because blacks are allowed to marry whites.

Here we go yet again. Gay people do not want "special" rights.

They want the same legal rights other citizens have in the eyes of the state in regards to having their relationships recognized by said state. A certain group of citizens, heterosexuals, have legal rights in the eyes of the state that sanction their relationships. Another group of citizens, homosexuals, DON'T have the same legal rights as heterosexuals to have their relationships sanctioned by the state and they are arguing that they should.

The comparison with black citizens IS important because at one time black citizens in this country did not have the same legal rights in the the eyes of the state, in regards to the sanctioning of their relationships, as white citizens do. And the Supreme Court said, "Hey, we have two groups of people who are fundamentally similar not being treated the same way in regards to the law. Let's remedy that." And this is exactly what the Massachusetts Supreme Court did earlier this year.

What you need to keep repeating over and over again is your belief that homosexuality is not a fundamental state of existence (In other words, they aren't born that way) and those of us who believe it is, or don't care whether or not it is, will keep arguing against you.

Because, at the end of the day, I--let me stress that again--I don't care whether or not homosexuality is determined at birth or chosen later in life. I want homosexual citizens of this country to have the SAME legal right to have their relationships sanctioned by the state as I do as a heterosexual citizen. I am opposed to this fundamental injustice. Regardless of what anyone says or thinks about homosexuality, I am against this injustice.

[strictlyplaid]

Originally posted by dcolton:
What bothers me is the assertion of gay people that believe they deserve special reights because blacks are allowed to marry whites.

Well, if people were allowed to marry members of the same sex, you would have that right as well. They're not "special" in that they're only granted to certain people. By the same token, gays currently have the "right" to marry members of the opposite sex, and choose not to exercise that right.

Kind of like that old saying about equality and the law: to certain people, "equality before the law" means that poor and rich alike are equally prohibited from sleeping under bridges. Of course, only one of those groups is ever going to run afoul of that law, although it technically applies to both.

I'd argue that gays' right to marry a member of the opposite sex is pretty much the same: their having the "right" to marry a member of the opposite sex doesn't mean much.

But as I recall, a few months ago you quoting something called the "Traditional Values Coalition" that homosexuality is a one-way ticket to pedophilia. So, is there any real reason for this conversation to continue? At some point, we just have to compete for open minds at the ballot box or else in a civil war. So far, your side is winning, so you can take pride in that if you want, but -- and here I go, comparing this to Civil Rights! -- the racial segregationists were eventually defeated after over 100 years of struggle, and I think someday history will remember the anti-gay movement much as George Wallace is remembered today.

Family values today, family values tomorrah, and family values foh-evah!

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by dcolton:
What bothers me is the assertion of gay people that believe they deserve special reights because blacks are allowed to marry whites.

It's not because blacks are allowed to marry whites that we want equal citizenship rights. It is because we deserve equal citizenship rights, period -- simply and for no other reason than we are as much Americans as you. Loving is just one of those Constitutional decisions of the Court that underscore the fact that the fundamental idea of equal rights before the law trumps majoritiarian prejudice -- if not in the short run, then at least in the long run.

The interesting thing is that the story of equal rights in America is full of these moments where people say that they will agree to equal rights to group A, but not to Group B. There is a very famous dissent by Justice Harlan in Plessy v. Ferguson. Plessy was the 1896 case that said separate but equal accomodations was constitutional. Harlan thought that was injust, and history sides with him, not the majority.

But in that otherwise stirring and forward-looking dissent, Harlan wrote the following:

There is a race so different from our own that we do not permit those belonging to it to become citizens of the United States. Persons belonging to it are, with few exceptions, absolutely excluded from our country. I allude to the Chinese race.

Today, those words strike us as racist, but in 1896, those were the words of a radical egalitarian. Time moves on, and old attitudes die.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Oh, and by the way, has it ever occured to you that black and gay are not opposites? There are black people who are also gay, just as there are gay people in every other group. Why should a black man see a century and a half of progress toward his equality be thrown in the toilet simply because he is born gay? Can there be any worse injustice than that?

Some famous black gay Americans, or as I prefer to see them, Americans who happened to be black, and who also happened to be gay:



Baynard Rustin -- organizer of the 1963 March on Washington



Langston Hughes, Poet.

[Mithras]

three cheers for simey, lovely posts.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by dcolton:
The truth, choice does not afford special rights to any citizen. That is what all of this boils down to...choice. Perhaps they should include cause and effect in your constitutional law class, it would make it easier for you to understand why making a choice doesn't equal special rights and privleges

In that case, let's deny marriage to people of different genders. Why should they get special rights and privileges for nothing more than a lifestyle choice?

While we're at it, let's rescind the First Amendment and stop protecting all those damn churchgoers. After all, religion is nothing more than a lifestyle choice.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by dcmacdaddy:
What you need to keep repeating over and over again is your belief that homosexuality is not a fundamental state of existence (In other words, they aren't born that way) and those of us who believe it is, or don't care whether or not it is, will keep arguing against you.

Yes, this is a persistent red herring. While I understand why people think it's useful to demonstrate that homosexuality is genetic, with respect to the law it shouldn't really matter whether it's genetic or a "lifestyle choice." Like it or not, in the eyes of the law, marriage is effectively a contractual relationship, and there's no reason why it should be treated differently than any other contractual relationship, and (barring any demonstrable harm) no reason why the government should treat two people of the same gender differently than it treats two people of different genders. How they have sex, or why they have sex, or whether they have sex at all, or whether they're even homosexual, is essentially irrelevant. Indeed, there's no reason why same-sex heterosexuals shouldn't be able to marry in order to enjoy the same legal privileges as opposite-sex couples, if they so choose. If one or another religious sect doesn't like the idea, they don't have to practice it. Simple.

If we were to restrict marriage to child-bearing couples, then the arguments against same-sex marriage would have a certain logic. But as long as we allow childless opposite-sex couples to enjoy the privileges of marriage, there's no reason why we shouldn't extend the privilege to other childless couples of whatever orientation, or no orientation at all.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by dcmacdaddy:
Here we go yet again. Gay people do not want "special" rights.

They want the same legal rights other citizens have in the eyes of the state in regards to having their relationships recognized by said state. A certain group of citizens, heterosexuals, have legal rights in the eyes of the state that sanction their relationships. Another group of citizens, homosexuals, DON'T have the same legal rights as heterosexuals to have their relationships sanctioned by the state and they are arguing that they should.

The comparison with black citizens IS important because at one time black citizens in this country did not have the same legal rights in the the eyes of the state, in regards to the sanctioning of their relationships, as white citizens do. And the Supreme Court said, "Hey, we have two groups of people who are fundamentally similar not being treated the same way in regards to the law. Let's remedy that." And this is exactly what the Massachusetts Supreme Court did earlier this year.

What you need to keep repeating over and over again is your belief that homosexuality is not a fundamental state of existence (In other words, they aren't born that way) and those of us who believe it is, or don't care whether or not it is, will keep arguing against you.

Because, at the end of the day, I--let me stress that again--I don't care whether or not homosexuality is determined at birth or chosen later in life. I want homosexual citizens of this country to have the SAME legal right to have their relationships sanctioned by the state as I do as a heterosexual citizen. I am opposed to this fundamental injustice. Regardless of what anyone says or thinks about homosexuality, I am against this injustice.

What law prevents homosexuals from marrying? The truth of the matter is that gays want to change the lefal definition of marriage ti cater to their lifestyle. Why should we change an age old institution to cater to a group of people who choose to lie with someone of the same sex? What do we do next, change the way we read and write to cater to those who are dyslexic?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by dcolton:
What do we do next, change the way we read and write to cater to those who are dyslexic?

Or blind?

[JLFanboy]

Originally posted by dcolton:
What do we do next, change the way we read and write to cater to those who are dyslexic?

Just curious, d, but do you actually know anyone who's gay? Is there anyone in your personal life that you consider a friend, or even someone in your family that happens to be gay?

Just wondering.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Or blind?

Yea, we can let 8 year olds marry, promote incest, polygamy, drug use, whatever. Welcome to the gay left vision of America!

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Yea, we can let 8 year olds marry, promote incest, polygamy, drug use, whatever. Welcome to the gay left vision of America!

No, you are just describing your paranoia.