Gay Marriage

Joining the conversation, again, re Dr. Laura, a woman of opinions whose program I used to listen to once in a while on LA freeways on the way to my cousins' place in Orange County, in some semiappalled state. I agreed with her on occasionally in some of her less weighty moments, but was generally horrified by the way she treated the callers - it seemed to be some kind of radio s & m, and I am not kidding with that analogy. She was totally abusive to caller after caller. I am sort of sorry now I never registered some sort of complaint to the station. Busy, you know.

I never heard her go on about homosexuality. I was driving in a livid state over other topics of beration.

Interesting position of semiauthority she has obtained... from
a doctorate in something else than, say, marriage and family therapy. Physiology, I think it was. Well, then. I am a landscape architect, and you need to listen to me....

Strange showbusiness. I admit it can happen on the left too, though from my observation that is relatively little. The real problem, to me, is there is no ameliorating information source, that I know of, to furnish relatively unbiased data from all over onto the US prime time telly.

SCRAT:

The San Jose City Council is working towards legalizing same sex marriage. Shame they lack the authority to legalize it.

Here we go again. The 14th Amendment is federal law that supercedes state law. All Americans means all states. The 14th is all the authority needed under the system that exists. The only change here is to end the discrimination so that the 14th amendment has any actual meaning.

Instead of insulting the neocon when this issue comes up, as Scrat complains about, just ask them if they are against the 14th Amendment. I guarantee you all 50 states will be hearing, The 14th Amendment, before too much times goes by.

Let's review Section 1: the all-important law involved with this issue:

Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Once you have reviewed this with the neocon, next ask him or her if all 50 states require a civil license for the law to recognize the marriage?

Then ask how some Americans get 1,049 laws protecting them because of that civil license, but the rest of the Americans don't, when the 14th states clearly that all are entitled to the same rights?

I guarantee you he or she will be much more upset with you than if you made fun of them and called them bad names...

And I'll say it again.

The lawmakers don't have a legal leg to stand on, and most surely wish this would all go away, because the state-issued license for marriage is THE discriminatory law being upheld as tradition.

Oooops.

Why you ask? Because of an even more important Amendment in the Bill of Rights, the 1st Amendment. Government shall make no law regarding religion....or regarding the freedom to worship. Government has indeed made a very discriminatory law regarding religion, since most state-issued marriage licenses end up in a church somewhere. Government has only itself to blame.

Umbagog, I couldn't have said it any clearer or better. Thx, c.i.

I used to catch her show when I was driving from time to time. I liked her ethical stances on most things, but hated the way she treated people. I think she could have a lot more positive impact on people if she were a bit gentler in dispensing her advice.

Umbagog - There is no mention of equal economic rights in the fourteenth (or any) amendment. My statements stand.

Looks pretty clear to me! Quote, "....nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Laws, laws, laws, equal, equal, equal........

From today's front page of the San Jose Mercury News, "San Jose recognizes same-sex marriages. City council votes to extend benefits to city workers in same-sex marriages granted by other cities despite opposition from an overflow crowd at City Hall."
I highlighted "extend benefits" for some people who still doesn't understand the issues of "equal protection under the law."

And the word "ECONOMIC"? Where precisely was that again?

Seriously, you guys really don't care what the text actually reads, do you? You just make it up as you go along! Here's an idea, instead of trying to insert words into the constitution, why not just find a logical or legal flaw in my argument? Or would that require too much thought?

If the same-gender requirement for marriage runs afoul of equal protection constraints because it has an unequal impact on homosexuals, why doesn't the assault weapon ban also fail the same test for the same reason; that it has an unequal impact on those who desire what it makes unlawful? My guess is that none of you have touched that argument because you see you can't get around it. Either both laws are okay because they are being equally applied (my position) or both laws should be struck down for having an unequal impact on citizens based purely on the desires of those citizens. You don't get to have it both ways.

The fourteenth amendment does not require that all laws will benefit or discomfit all citizens equally; it requires that all laws be applied equally. Even if we wanted to do the former, it is impossible, because no law can ever take into account the desires of every citizen. The standard you are setting for equal protection requires that no law applied to all citizens can ever deny to one person that which he or she might desire. That's your stance here... The law equally denies all people the right to marry the same-gender, but you are arguing that this is not equal because some people desire this and others don't. You might as well argue that murder statutes are unfairly applied to people who want to kill their wives. It's the same legal argument: The law is unfairly applied to would-be killers because they desire what the law forbids while others do not.

And please, leave off attacking my intellect, breeding, etc. and just take my arguments apart if you can. (If you can't, you might want to reconsider yours.) Thanks.

Your thinly veiled personal insults aside, I think this is great news.

Now, please tell me how many people of ANY SEXUAL ORIENTATION were permitted these benefits for same-gender partners before this announcement? Thanks.

As I have stated before on this subject, this is the biggest argument I have with my fellow Republicans during our Party meetings.

I have tried numerous times to make them understand that if the government denies the protections of the Constitution to ANY of us, regardless of the topic, that gives them the right to deny ALL of us the protection of that documents at their whim.

Two words folks:

SLIPPERY SLOPE[/u]

I agree completely. This is also the argument I offer in the face of the expansion of federal power where there is no enumeration in the constitution; that when we let the government ignore the constitution when we like it, we cede to them the power to do it when we don't.

Ossso..you listened to Dr. Laura on the way to Orange County...is that like "total immersion" preparation in foreign language for visiting another country?

.

Osso wrote:
"Separate and equal didn't fly to well with bussing and schooling. It's prejudice pretending to share like good Christians, and a total farce, of course.

And finally, if civil unions give gays the identical legal perks, protections and benefits married people have now, then isn't a civil union a marriage, and isn't a marriage a civil union. Why make the distinction at all? What's the point.

Civil union must be the positioning to be exploited later, but no matter how many times they repeat it, they can't convince people anymore that they are anything but blatant, ignorantly, and selfishly biased and prejudiced against fellow Americans. The more they attack, the more they look anti-American AND anti-Bill of Rights. They have to be very, very careful with this one.

And they know it."



Yep.


.

.

Amendment XIV Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I admit this confuses me somewhat.

Could one argue that (civil) marriage itself is unconstitutional because it "abridges" the priviledges of unmarried people (hetero AND homo) by granting extra privilidges to married people? You might answer this question by saying "no" because everyone has the right to get married and thereby secure those priviledges. But gay people don't have that right.

And, to me, it seems disingenuous to respond to that by saying "sure they do, they, too, can marry someone of the opposite sex". Marriage is a union between two people who love each other and want to share everything together, including sex. In that sense, gay people do not have the right to marry.


.

Pardon?

.


I may not have made my point well.

I have heard some people say that gay people actually DO HAVE THE RIGHT TO MARRY. It's just that they have to marry someone of the opposite gender. But since they do not become romantically involved with people of the opposite gender, they essentially DO NOT HAVE the right to marry.

I'm not sure if I've cleared up what I was trying to say.

.

That certainly sounds like excellent twisted logic to me!!! I can make almost anything I want "true" with that kinda spin.......

<BOGGLE> <boggle>