The CONSTITUTION & GAY AMERICANS

[Peach]

As the Constitution is not a religious mandate, why not discuss the Constitution and the rights of gay Americans? Why should gay Americans, under US laws, be denied the right to marry, inheritance rights, the right to make decisions for their partners, and all other privileges of US citizens?

 

[eflatminor]

As the Constitution is not a religious mandate, why not discuss the Constitution and the rights of gay Americans? Why should gay Americans, under US laws, be denied the right to marry, inheritance rights, the right to make decisions for their partners, and all other privileges of US citizens?

Why should heterosexual couples be granted any special rights? Outside of military and immigration, why should the federal government have the right to know ANYBODY'S personal relationships? These "privileges" were created by politicians, they can be overturned by politicians. Creating even more special classes of citizens with special privileges is hardly equal justice.

 

[Peach]

As the Constitution is not a religious mandate, why not discuss the Constitution and the rights of gay Americans? Why should gay Americans, under US laws, be denied the right to marry, inheritance rights, the right to make decisions for their partners, and all other privileges of US citizens?

Why should heterosexual couples be granted any special rights? Outside of military and immigration, why should the federal government have the right to know ANYBODY'S personal relationships? These "privileges" were created by politicians, they can be overturned by politicians. Crating even more special classes of citizens with special privileges is hardly equal justice.

States have defined MARRIAGE & INHERITANCE; thus states have overstepped their bounds?

 

[eflatminor]

As the Constitution is not a religious mandate, why not discuss the Constitution and the rights of gay Americans? Why should gay Americans, under US laws, be denied the right to marry, inheritance rights, the right to make decisions for their partners, and all other privileges of US citizens?

Why should heterosexual couples be granted any special rights? Outside of military and immigration, why should the federal government have the right to know ANYBODY'S personal relationships? These "privileges" were created by politicians, they can be overturned by politicians. Crating even more special classes of citizens with special privileges is hardly equal justice.

States have defined MARRIAGE & INHERITANCE; thus states have overstepped their bounds?

I'm sorry, you referenced the Constitution, a federal document. If you believe all this is a state's rights issue, then why mention it?

 

[free_speech]

Gays don't choose to be gay. It's just a biological mistake. Marriage for gays is unnatural and shouldn't be allowed. We don't allow people to marry more than one person or marry animals. We are a nation of laws.

 

[Big Black Dog]

Marriage is between a man and a woman. Period. Anything else called marriage is just plain queer. What's the beef with calling homosexual hook-ups a civil union?

 

[FuelRod]

As the Constitution is not a religious mandate, why not discuss the Constitution and the rights of gay Americans? Why should gay Americans, under US laws, be denied the right to marry, inheritance rights, the right to make decisions for their partners, and all other privileges of US citizens?

Why should heterosexual couples be granted any special rights? Outside of military and immigration, why should the federal government have the right to know ANYBODY'S personal relationships? These "privileges" were created by politicians, they can be overturned by politicians. Crating even more special classes of citizens with special privileges is hardly equal justice.

States have defined MARRIAGE & INHERITANCE; thus states have overstepped their bounds?

The Constituition is clear that issues (for lack of a a better term) not covered by the document are the responsibility of the states. That is where this issue and many belong.

 

[Peach]

Why should heterosexual couples be granted any special rights? Outside of military and immigration, why should the federal government have the right to know ANYBODY'S personal relationships? These "privileges" were created by politicians, they can be overturned by politicians. Crating even more special classes of citizens with special privileges is hardly equal justice.

States have defined MARRIAGE & INHERITANCE; thus states have overstepped their bounds?

I'm sorry, you referenced the Constitution, a federal document. If you believe all this is a state's rights issue, then why mention it?

DOMA continues to be brought up by candidates; I asked if STATES had gone beyond their powers in enacting laws defining marriage. If it is a Constitutional right, then states have enacted laws that are void.

 

[Peach]

Why should heterosexual couples be granted any special rights? Outside of military and immigration, why should the federal government have the right to know ANYBODY'S personal relationships? These "privileges" were created by politicians, they can be overturned by politicians. Crating even more special classes of citizens with special privileges is hardly equal justice.

States have defined MARRIAGE & INHERITANCE; thus states have overstepped their bounds?

The Constituition is clear that issues (for lack of a a better term) not covered by the document are the responsibility of the states. That is where this issue and many belong.

That was my question to eflatminor; note that Federal courts have struck down some state laws "defining" marriage; Loving v. Virginia is perhaps best known.

 

[rdean]

Republicans hate the gays. That much is clear. Once that's understood, everything else makes sense.

 

[Peach]

Gays don't choose to be gay. It's just a biological mistake. Marriage for gays is unnatural and shouldn't be allowed. We don't allow people to marry more than one person or marry animals. We are a nation of laws.

The same argument was used to fend anti miscegenation laws.

 

[Peach]

Marriage is between a man and a woman. Period. Anything else called marriage is just plain queer. What's the beef with calling homosexual hook-ups a civil union?

Inheritance rights, and other spousal benefits.

 

[eflatminor]

States have defined MARRIAGE & INHERITANCE; thus states have overstepped their bounds?

I'm sorry, you referenced the Constitution, a federal document. If you believe all this is a state's rights issue, then why mention it?

DOMA continues to be brought up by candidates; I asked if STATES had gone beyond their powers in enacting laws defining marriage. If it is a Constitutional right, then states have enacted laws that are void.

Obviously, I do not support DOMA or any federal defining of personal relationships (outside of where the enumerated powers require it). At the federal level, marriage is clearly NOT a Constitutional right. It's a state issue. What a state can and cannot do depends on the state and the wording of their state constitution. Personally, I'd like to see states and the feds get out of the marriage business. If a state has a legitimate reason to know a personal relationship (inheritance for instance), they only need the name of that individual, they need not know the nature of the relationship.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Why should heterosexual couples be granted any special rights?

They shouldn’t.

But equal access to the law – as in equal among other citizens – is a Constitutional right.

Outside of military and immigration, why should the federal government have the right to know ANYBODY'S personal relationships?

Non sequitur

These "privileges" were created by politicians, they can be overturned by politicians. Creating even more special classes of citizens with special privileges is hardly equal justice.

Marriage is a right, not a privilege. And same-sex couples are not a ‘special’ class, but a particular class of persons a state may not deem a stranger to its laws.

The Constituition is clear that issues (for lack of a a better term) not covered by the document are the responsibility of the states. That is where this issue and many belong.

Incorrect.

The 14th Amendment requires all states to allow all citizens equal access to a state’s laws; states do not have the authority to determine who will or will not have his rights.

 

[rdean]

See?

 

[TruthSeeker56]

I don't believe that the founding fathers intended to endorse or restrict SEXUAL LIFESTYLES. I serious doubt that Jefferson and Hamilton and Adams were worried about the "rights" of homosexuals when they were risking their lives by defying their British rulers.

I also don't believe that the founding fathers intended to restrict the right of law-abiding American citizens to keep and bear arms. They knew that the ULTIMATE "check and balance" was the armed "repossession" of the United States Of America by it's citizens, if and when the U.S. government became tyrannical and out-of-control and systematically trampled on the rights granted to all U.S. citizens by the U.S. Constitution.

Apparently the individual states have decided that SEXUAL LIFESTYLES need to be "defined" and therefore subject to inalienable "rights".

Individual states have also decided that law-abiding citizens shall be restricted from keeping and bearing arms, thus leaving these citizens vunerable to violence and other criminal activities.