I'm okay with people being homophobic; I'm not okay with denying anyone the same rights as others because of it.
Of course, the notion that current laws and norms relating to marriage are unequally applied is a legal fiction (a convenient fiction, but a fiction nonetheless).
I'd personally support an effort to create a gender-blind civil union or marriage analog (hell, call it "marriage" if you want, I don't care) in my state, because that would expand liberty, not because the current law is applied unequally based on sexual preference. (I don't believe it is.)
To the best of my knowledge, existing marriage statutes across the country are applied equally to all, or at least are intended to be so applied. In my home state, no one may marry someone else of like gender, whether the persons involved identify themselves as heterosexuals or homosexuals. The law applies equally to all. That it has an unequal impact based on sexual preference is true, but does not go to the question of application.
Gun control laws adversely effect those who desire prohibited guns, but have no adverse effect on those who do not seek to purchase or own same. As with marriage laws, the impact these laws have on the individual is a function of the desires of the individual; if you do not desire what is legally forbidden you, you are not adversely effected by the law. If you do desire it, you are harmed. But in both instances the law is applied equally to both groups, those who seek what is disallowed and those who do not.
Again, I happen to believe that government should not be in the business of telling any adults what kind of relationships they may or may not form, and that if they are going to recognize opposite-gender unions, they should recognize same-gender unions as well, but I disagree with the much ballyhooed notion that existing marriage laws run afoul of the 14th amendment.
Diaspora- definition-The scattering of the Jews to countries outside of Palestine after the Babylonian Captivity-
One could not possibly use Diasporic in the sentence in my post since diasporic is clearly an adjective.
There, aren't you happy now, Intrepid? Please raise your hand and ask teacher any questions you wish. That's the only way you can learn.
chiczaira wrote:Diaspora- definition-The scattering of the Jews to countries outside of Palestine after the Babylonian Captivity-
One could not possibly use Diasporic in the sentence in my post since diasporic is clearly an adjective.
There, aren't you happy now, Intrepid? Please raise your hand and ask teacher any questions you wish. That's the only way you can learn.
I was pointing out your use of the word disapora. This word does not exist.
Quote:Well, Canada has shown it is permissive. Perhaps there will be a huge disaspora in that direction!
I, therefore, wondered if you meant diaspora. This was based on your obvious need for totally correct wordage as evidenced by your following quote to me. You got part of the definition, but not the part that you should have used.
This is the definition: diaspora
A dispersion of a people from their original homeland
Chici wrote:
Quote:If you are going to use a multisyllabic word which is unfamiliar to most people and use the word to define someone or something,please make sure you spell it correctly. Otherwise, you look like a dunce.
Need I say more?
"Douche!" would be more appropriate. Come on guys, dissecting each other's typing and grammar is a bit lame. Unless you simply can't understand what the other person was getting at, why not just attend to the point being made and leave the other crap for the grammar threads?
(Pulling down flame-proof visor...)
the prince wrote:Now this is gonna be fun
princette! lovely to see youa again.
Scrat wrote:To the best of my knowledge, existing marriage statutes across the country are applied equally to all, or at least are intended to be so applied. In my home state, no one may marry someone else of like gender, whether the persons involved identify themselves as heterosexuals or homosexuals. The law applies equally to all. That it has an unequal impact based on sexual preference is true, but does not go to the question of application.
Which is why the courts, in determining whether a statute is unconstitutionally discriminatory, look at the law's disparate
impact rather than focusing solely on the law's application.
Scrat wrote:Gun control laws adversely effect those who desire prohibited guns, but have no adverse effect on those who do not seek to purchase or own same. As with marriage laws, the impact these laws have on the individual is a function of the desires of the individual; if you do not desire what is legally forbidden you, you are not adversely effected by the law. If you do desire it, you are harmed. But in both instances the law is applied equally to both groups, those who seek what is disallowed and those who do not.
That's a rather simplistic way of looking at disparate impact. When the South had literacy requirements for voters, the requirements only had an impact on people who desired to vote. That didn't make the requirements any less objectionable or discriminatory. A law that is facially neutral can still have an unconstitutionally discriminatory impact: when the law has the
effect of depriving a certain segment of the population of its constitutional rights, the law is unconstitutional.
Not simplistic at all. Setting aside the murky situation in Massachusetts, and excluding voluntary restrictions, there are currently no legal barriers whatsoever for ANY person of legal age marrying ANY other consenting person of legal age provided the two people are not of the same gender. Nobody has the right to marry a person of the same sex or be married to more than one person at a time. The fact that some choose not to marry a person of the opposite sex or choose not to marry for whatever reason or can't find anybody to marry does not change the fact that they have an equal right to do so. The fact that one's beliefs or religion allows more than one spouse does not make them immune to the same law everybody else has to follow.
The Voting Rights Act struck down artificially imposed barriers that excluded large numbers of people from the voting process. The current marriage laws exclude nobody.
HofT wrote:
All this pro-gay-rights militancy has the opposite effect to the one desired by its proponents, as already proven in referenda and legislation.
Personally couldn't care less about homosexuals, except in my support of bathhouses and the like on the basis natural selection will keep their numbers down more efficiently than speeches by terminal bores like Gary Bauer:)
Both good arguments, and as it happens, the same ones I turn to on NRA issues.
Foxfyre wrote:The Voting Rights Act struck down artificially imposed barriers that excluded large numbers of people from the voting process. The current marriage laws exclude nobody.
Yes, it's true: gays and straights have equal rights when it comes to marrying someone of the opposite sex. But that's sham equality. As Anatole France pointed out: "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."
It's
deja vu all over again!
I've said it twice and I'll say it again: The law, as it currently stands, permits only one class of persons to have state-sanctioned affective relationships and to enjoy the rights and benefits that pertain to those relationships. Heterosexuals, in that respect, are clearly more equal than homosexuals.
No they aren't because homosexuals are not excluded from marrying. They can marry. The only constraints on their right or ability to marry is purely by their own choice. The marriage laws that exist have absolutely zero social, political, or economic constraints upon any homosexual than is imposed on any heterosexual. The rights are equal and have equal impact. That the law doesn't meet the wants of a particular group is irrelevant. Everybody doesn't want the same speed limits or zoning restrictions either. I might want to marry Robert Redford but don't have that option just because I might want it.
Marriage laws as they now exist provide 100% equal rights.
Foxfyre wrote:. . . there are currently no legal barriers whatsoever for ANY person of legal age marrying ANY other consenting person of legal age provided the two people are not of the same gender. Nobody has the right to marry a person of the same sex or be married to more than one person at a time. . . .
The current marriage laws exclude nobody.
The marriage law applies equally to everyone. This is the same "equal application" argument made by the State of Virginia that was rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court.
See
LOVING v. VIRGINIA, 388 U.S. 1 (1967):
The Supreme Court wrote:Because we reject the notion that the mere "equal application" of a statute containing racial classifications is enough to remove the classifications from the Fourteenth Amendment's proscription of all invidious racial discriminations, we do not accept the State's contention that these statutes should be upheld if there is any possible basis for concluding that they serve a rational purpose. . . .
The State finds support for its "equal application" theory in the decision of the Court in Pace v. Alabama, 106 U.S. 583 (1883). In that case, the Court upheld a conviction under an Alabama statute forbidding adultery or fornication between a white person and a Negro which imposed a greater penalty than that of a statute proscribing similar conduct by members of the same race. The Court reasoned that the statute could not be said to discriminate against Negroes because the punishment for each participant in the offense was the same. However, as recently as the 1964 Term, in rejecting the reasoning of that case, we stated "Pace represents a limited view of the Equal Protection Clause which has not withstood analysis in the subsequent decisions of this Court." McLaughlin v. Florida, supra, at 188. As we there demonstrated, the Equal Protection Clause requires the consideration of whether the classifications drawn by any statute constitute an arbitrary and invidious discrimination.
There can be no question but that Virginia's miscegenation statutes rest solely upon distinctions drawn according to race. The statutes proscribe generally accepted conduct if engaged in by members of different races. . . .
These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
Similarly, there can be no question but that state marriage statutes rest solely upon distinctions drawn according to gender.
The statutes proscribe generally accepted conduct (marriage) if engaged in by members of the same sex.
We can reject the notion that mere "equal application" of a statute containing gender classifications is enough to remove the classifications from the Fourteenth Amendment's proscription of invidious discriminations that deprive persons of the fundamental right to marry the person of their choice.
The difference is that most biologists and sociologists agree that male and female genders are physically, socially, intrinsically, psychologically, and practically different. Thus we have different public restrooms, same sex washroom attendants in the restrooms, etc.
There is no automatic difference physically, socially, intrinisically, psychologically or practically between people with different pigmentation in their skin. Also there is no significant minority status involved in considerations of gender.
Again there is no discrimination as homosexuals have exactly the same choices and same opportunities as heterosexuals to marry under the existing laws.
Foxfyre wrote:The difference is that most biologists and sociologists agree that male and female genders are physically, socially, intrinsically, psychologically, and practically different. Thus we have different public restrooms, same sex washroom attendants in the restrooms, etc.
There is no automatic difference physically, socially, intrinisically, psychologically or practically between people with different pigmentation in their skin. Also there is no significant minority status involved in considerations of gender.
Again there is no discrimination as homosexuals have exactly the same choices and same opportunities as heterosexuals to marry under the existing laws.
I don't understand your rationale. Your justification for separate restrooms for men and women does not justify laws that discriminate against homosexuals with respect to fundamental rights. You still have not addressed the Supreme Court's rejection of your "equal application" argument. Your "gender is different than race" argument simply begs the question.
Following the reasoning in "Loving v. Virginia" as interpreted by Debra means that as of today the FDA is in breach of the equal protection clause:
_____________________________________________________________
"The Food and Drug Administration yesterday approved the controversial drug BiDil to treat heart failure specifically in black patients, marking the first time a medication has been targeted at a racial group.
The agency said the approval marked "a step toward the promise of personalized medicine," and was based on research that found the drug could significantly improve the quality of life for black heart disease patients and markedly reduce their chances of being hospitalized and dying."
_____________________________________________________________
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/23/AR2005062301762.html
Foxfyre wrote:No they aren't because homosexuals are not excluded from marrying. They can marry. The only constraints on their right or ability to marry is purely by their own choice. The marriage laws that exist have absolutely zero social, political, or economic constraints upon any homosexual than is imposed on any heterosexual. The rights are equal and have equal impact. That the law doesn't meet the wants of a particular group is irrelevant. Everybody doesn't want the same speed limits or zoning restrictions either. I might want to marry Robert Redford but don't have that option just because I might want it.
Marriage laws as they now exist provide 100% equal rights.
Foxfyre evidently believes that a flawed argument gains validity the more times that it is repeated. It is a logical fallacy known, appropriately enough, as an
argumentum ad nauseum.
HofT wrote:Following the reasoning in "Loving v. Virginia" as interpreted by Debra means that as of today the FDA is in breach of the equal protection clause:
It is one of the great flaws of democracy that a person who can utter such inanities has the right to cast as many votes as I have.
Thank you, Joe, but for consistency, would you also confirm that you support literacy tests for voter registration?
[quote="joefromchicago
Foxfyre evidently believes that a flawed argument gains validity the more times that it is repeated. It is a logical fallacy known, appropriately enough, as an
argumentum ad nauseum.[/quote]
P.S. to Joe: literacy tests in Latin would disqualify YOU ab initio <G>
HofT wrote:Thank you, Joe, but for consistency, would you also confirm that you support literacy tests for voter registration?
Certainly not. I'm sure that some illiterates are far more politically astute than an average citizen such as yourself. There is no reason to disenfranchise them simply because they can't read. I am, however, in favor of any measure that would limit the electorate to those people who understand what's going on in the country and the world.
