11
   

Doesn't banning gay marriage strip people of their basic rights?

 
 
xxxx
 
Reply Sat 15 Sep, 2012 04:19 pm
People want to ban gay marriage for religious reasons. They do it because in the bible it says marriage is for man and women in order to procreate. I always thought that banning gay marriage was unconstitutional stripping people of their basic rights. The rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. If so, why does the government still let those laws pass?
I'm 14... so you guys can say that I don't know anything etc. blah blah. But it's just something I was thinking.
 
tsarstepan
 
  3  
Reply Sat 15 Sep, 2012 04:20 pm
@xxxx,
Short answer: Big bold ...
YES!

Government lets these laws pass out of fear and political expediency. It's easier to pander to the fearmongering/hatemongering conservatives on this issue because middle of the road/independents tend to have their own milder prejudices and won't speak up when these despicable ban/policies are voted in and enforced.
Rockhead
 
  4  
Reply Sat 15 Sep, 2012 04:22 pm
@tsarstepan,
they should be able to fund the lavish lifestyles of divorce attorneys just like the rest of us, dammit...
0 Replies
 
jcboy
 
  7  
Reply Sat 15 Sep, 2012 04:32 pm
My favorite quote on this subject is one Debra Law gave on March 8th 2006!

In this thread: http://able2know.org/topic/69590-14

Quote:
There is no dispute that this country has a LONG HISTORY of prejudice and bias that resulted in the unequal treatment of many classes of persons.

When Mr. and Mrs. Loving were convicted of the crime of entering into an interracial marriage and were forced to leave Virginia or face incarceration, the trial judge stated the following:

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/388/1.html

The judge stated that prejudicial and discriminatory garbage (and justified it in God's name) at a point in time nearly a hundred years after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The fact that our courts failed to effectuate the explicit language of the Fourteenth Amendment for a LONG TIME doesn't negate the Fourteenth Amendment or render it meaningless. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment unambiguously states the following:

"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."


As a nation, we have a reprehensible history of depriving persons of their rights guaranteed by the Constitution. We have a reprehensible history of depriving persons of equal protection of the laws. That history is dripping with the discrimination, prejudice, animus, and oppression of disfavored classes of persons. Despite the existence of explicit constitutional protection, members of disfavored classes of persons have often been afraid to step forward to assert their rights to be treated as equal members of society.

Rosa Parks wasn't the first black person to be arrested for refusing to give her seat on the bus to a white person. Others before her tried to stand up for their rights, but were met with resistance:

The Montgomery Bus Boycott officially started on December 1, 1955. That was the day when the blacks of Montgomery, Alabama, decided that they would boycott the city buses until they could sit anywhere they wanted, instead of being relegated to the back when a white boarded. It was not, however, the day that the movement to desegregate the buses started. . . . Perhaps the movement started on the day in the early 1950s when a black pastor named Vernon Johns tried to get other blacks to leave a bus in protest after he was forced to give up his seat to a white man, only to have them tell him, "You ought to knowed better."

http://www.watson.org/~lisa/blackhistory/civilrights-55-65/montbus.html

After the bus boycott began, the blacks in the community were retaliated against with arrests, threats, beatings, and bombings.

When the city defended segregation by saying that integration would lead to violence, Judge Rives asked, "Is it fair to command one man to surrender his constitutional rights, if they are his constitutional rights, in order to prevent another man from committing a crime?"

Thomas, you believe that oppressed classes of persons ought to bide their time and wait to become equal members of society until such time as their majoritarian oppressors agree not to oppress them anymore. Perhaps, under your view, the blacks in the south would have eventually effectuated "social change" without the assistance of our courts to enforce the Constitution. But, what good is our beloved Constitution if it is just a god-damned piece of paper that holds empty promises? While some people might be complacent to wear the chains of oppression, others are not. The brave ones pave the way for others to follow.

What makes this country great is the fact that oppressed persons don't have to stand with their hats in their hands and plead like beggars to be treated with dignity and equality. They have the freedom and the right to petition the courts and to invoke the Fourteenth Amendment to put an end to state oppressions. Our 138 years of history since the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment have demonstrated to the people that fighting for their civil rights and for equality within society isn't a futile act anymore. We no longer sit complacently at the proverbial back of the bus and proclaim to those who do fight for their rights, "You ought to knowed better."

Those who came before the homosexuals as a class of persons paved the way and developed our jurisprudence under the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Homosexuals are persons protected by the Constitution from state deprivations of their life, liberty, and property interests. Homosexuals are persons entitled to equal protection under the law. The Fourteenth Amendment is not a meaningless provision in a meaningless document.

With respect to this country's deplorable treatment of women (in their role as de facto slaves as the property of their husbands) throughout our history, the Supreme Court noted the following when it invalidated a state-imposed spousal notification law:

There was a time, not so long ago, when a different understanding of the family and of the Constitution prevailed. In Bradwell v. State, 16 Wall. 130 (1873), three Members of this [505 U.S. 833, 897] Court reaffirmed the common law principle that a woman had no legal existence separate from her husband, who was regarded as her head and representative in the social state; and, notwithstanding some recent modifications of this civil status, many of the special rules of law flowing from and dependent upon this cardinal principle still exist in full force in most States. Id., at 141 (Bradley, J., joined by Swayne and Field, JJ., concurring in judgment). Only one generation has passed since this Court observed that "woman is still regarded as the center of home and family life," with attendant "special responsibilities" that precluded full and independent legal status under the Constitution. Hoyt v. Florida, 368 U.S. 57, 62 (1961). These views, of course, are no longer consistent with our understanding of the family, the individual, or the Constitution. . . .

. . . Section 3209 embodies a view of marriage consonant with the common law status of married women, but repugnant to our present understanding of marriage and of the nature of the rights secured by the Constitution. Women do not lose their constitutionally protected liberty when they marry. The Constitution protects all individuals, male or female, married or unmarried, from the abuse of governmental power, even where that power is employed for the supposed benefit of a member of the individual's family. These considerations confirm our conclusion that 3209 is invalid.

http://laws.findlaw.com/us/505/833.html

The Constitution protects all individuals (homosexuals included) from the abuse of government power. The fact that it has taken 138 years of feet-dragging history after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment to enforce constitutional limitations on state governmental powers does not require the courts to abstain from enforcing the Constitution and ridding this country of the evils the Constitution sought to prohibit.

Those persons who are morally against same-sex marriages, like the persons before them who were morally against racially-mixed marriages, have no right to demand action by the State which results in the denial of equal protection of the laws to other individuals. The state's power to create and enforce marital rights must be exercized within the boundaries defined by the Fourteenth Amendment.

See, e.g. SHELLEY V. KRAEMER , 334 U.S. 1 (1948) (The Constitution confers upon no individual the right to demand action by the State which results in the denial of equal protection of the laws to other individuals. And it would appear beyond question that the power of the State to create and enforce property interests must be exercised within the boundaries defined by the Fourteenth Amendment); LOVING v. VIRGINIA, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) (While the state court is no doubt correct in asserting that marriage is a social relation subject to the State's police power, Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888), the State does not contend in its argument before this Court that its powers to regulate marriage are unlimited notwithstanding the commands of the Fourteenth Amendment).


"The fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice." Lawrence v. Texas

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=02-102

It has always been said that we are a nation of laws, not of men. Our nation was founded on the concept of individual freedom and justice for all. We have a long history and tradition of oppressed groups coming forward to protest the infliction of state oppressions and to find redress of their grievances in our courts. Despite the fact that our courts have not effectively honored its duty in the past and allowed oppressions to take root, our constitutional values have eventually prevailed to unroot and prohibit those oppressions. We the people do not stand quietly and allow our rights to be subjected to the prejudicial or discriminatory whims of the electorate. Liberty depends on unfettered access to impartial courts to vindicate individual rights. Hamilton voiced this underlying principle of our constitutional republic during the ratification debates:

. . . For I agree, that "there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers.''

. . . The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution. By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority; such, for instance, as that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex-post-facto laws, and the like. Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/federal/fed78.htm

Liberty, justice, and equal protection under the law are basic concepts that are not subject to the whims of majoritarian politics and elections. Rights protected by the Constitution against governmental usurpations must be vindicated by our courts. Thomas, your desire to leave the determination of the individual rights of disfavored minorities in the hands of majoritarian politics flies in the face of the constitutional values upon which this country was founded.

If the moral majority of persons in this country may deprive homosexuals of their fundamental rights and equality within society based solely on their prejudices and moral disapproval, and if homosexuals cannot seek redress in our courts of law, then this ain't America.

Lustig Andrei
 
  2  
Reply Sat 15 Sep, 2012 04:53 pm
@jcboy,
Thank you for reprinting that, jc. It's a powerful statement that should not be forgotten or ignored.
jcboy
 
  4  
Reply Sat 15 Sep, 2012 04:54 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
That was the first thread I read on this forum back in 2006 and I've kept it bookmarked ever since Razz
0 Replies
 
djjd62
 
  4  
Reply Sat 15 Sep, 2012 04:57 pm
i turn to the late comedian bill hicks for my philosophy on gay marriage

in the early 90's his take on gays in the military was this, "anyone stupid enough to want to be in the army should be allowed to join"

in my opinion, the same applies for marriage
Lustig Andrei
 
  2  
Reply Sat 15 Sep, 2012 05:00 pm
@djjd62,
Careful there, dj. Some of us think marriage is a great institution.


Then again, who wants to be institutionalized? Wink
0 Replies
 
contrex
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 15 Sep, 2012 05:33 pm
Does anybody in fact want to "ban" it? (withdraw the right, where it exists?) In order to "ban" something it must first exist. It seems like xxxx is confused or possibly is not a native English speaker. Possibly he does not understand the difference between gay relationships and "gay marriage".



xxxx
 
  3  
Reply Sat 15 Sep, 2012 09:41 pm
@contrex,
wow.. that hurts I am a native English speaker and I'm a she, thank you. Ban - the act of prohibiting something by a law or official decree. That's what happening with gay marriage. You said in order to ban something it must exist first. Gay marriage already existed if that's what you mean. In fact California approved of gay marriage until prop 8 came along. If eliminating rights of same-sex marriage isn't banning, what would you call it.
Rockhead
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Sep, 2012 09:44 pm
@xxxx,
don't take it too hard.

comtrex is a native english speaker that has been exiled to live among the french and spanish.

we're not sure why yet...
0 Replies
 
contrex
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Sep, 2012 12:29 am
I'm sorry, I didn't imagine there was anywhere in the world where gay marriage rights, once having been put into law, had been taken away again.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Sep, 2012 02:06 am
Marry in haste, repent at leisure . . .

Indeed, everyone of every sexual persuasion should be entitled to a lifetime of poignant, useless regrets.
0 Replies
 
contrex
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Sep, 2012 06:40 am
I have thought about the 'ban' word, and I have crystallized where my confusion lay. I thought that to 'ban' something meant to forbid, by means of legislation or other regulatory action, some action or behaviour that people are actually physically capable of carrying out, such as smoking in a workplace, or sending SMS messages while driving, or carrying a weapon without a permit.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Sep, 2012 07:31 am
You know the anti gay nuts are making it hard not to support gay marriages however as the reason behind all the religion nonsense concerning married is that all states had an interest in encouraging stable long term relationships for children to be born into and raised.

For the most part that does not apply to gay couples even if we had an example of it applying on this website to one couple.

Now why should the society license and encourage such relationships that for the most part the society have no skin in the game?

Why should resources be taken away from both single gays and straights and given to gay couples in the form of taxes breaks and other benefits?

As I stated at the start of this post it is hard not to support gays couples married rights given the very very unpleasant people that mostly are against it so perhaps this in one time logic need to bow down to others considerations of social justice.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Sep, 2012 07:36 am
@contrex,
Quote:
I'm sorry, I didn't imagine there was anywhere in the world where gay marriage rights, once having been put into law, had been taken away again.


Been a numbers of US states where that had happen as the states legislatures had grant marriage rights and the people had taken it away by direct votes.
0 Replies
 
pavarasra
 
  2  
Reply Mon 18 Feb, 2013 10:36 pm
@xxxx,
You may be 14, but you are addressing an important issue and you seem to have an important say in it. You are right; the US Constitution does in fact say that humans have "certain unalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." When people say that two people cannot get married because it is a violation of the biblical word, they are violating two constitutional right given to man: "liberty and the pursuit of happiness." I've been harping on this point that "to each their own," but I can't stress it enough. I think we should just let people do what they want, given that it does not interfere with the lives of others, as long as they are happy. I personally do not have a problem with same sex marriage, and frankly, I don't see why people, in general, should.
0 Replies
 
logang11
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Feb, 2013 03:58 pm
Honestly, it is not at all Biblical in my opinion. Marraige is a term for a male and female couple joined together in union recognized by the state and country. When this Union occurs, the couple gains benefits both in taxes and in the ability to share health insurance. Now, I am not saying that homosexuals should die and not have insurance, I am just getting to a point. These benefits are part of marraige because, in tradition, you get married and have kids. In having kids, you are promoting generations within the country you live in, and keeping a population for the future. Marraige is an incentive to gain tax and insurance benefits. In return, the married couple (generally) will have children. However, you throw gay marraige into the mix, and the benefits are no longer valid. You are giving the incentive to couple that can physically not have children. Now, yes, I understand that not all married couples have kids, but it is the general purpose of the incentive. All of this said, I have no problems with homosexuals, however, I believe that they do not deserve the incentive of marraige as they are not procreating for the furhterment of the country's population.
komr98
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 May, 2013 12:20 pm
@logang11,
Quote:
I believe that they do not deserve the incentive of marraige as they are not procreating for the furhterment of the country's population.

They might not be able to increase the country's population, but they can still raise the next generation. My father and his partner are gay, and I think of both of them as my parents seeing as they both raise me and have both helped me develop into the person I am today. I think it's is absolutely tragc that it is illegal for them to be married. If I was in the hospital (perhaps after a surgery), my dad's partner wouldn't be able to visit me for an extended amount of time SIMPLY because they aren't married and he's not (legally) related to me. He would be one of the first people I'd want to see yet I wouldn't be able to. So, in other words, I disagree with your statement (even though I can see the logic behind it).
Shadow X
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 15 May, 2013 02:46 pm
@komr98,
For all the people crying about equal rights and protections under the constitution... What do you think about an incestuous couple that wants to get married and receive taxpayer funded benefits? A dad and his consensual 22 year old daughter. Or two 25 year old siblings want to get married? They are consentual adults. Do you TRULY believe in this "equality" concept as you are defining it or are you simply using it when it's convenient for your argument?
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Doesn't banning gay marriage strip people of their basic rights?
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/16/2019 at 04:34:54