Three Simple Questions No One Can Seem to Answer About Gay Marriage

Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by BluePhantom, May 11, 2012.

  1. BluePhantom
    Offline

    BluePhantom Educator (of liberals)

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2011
    Messages:
    7,062
    Thanks Received:
    1,738
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Portland, OR / Salem, OR
    Ratings:
    +3,137
    Well it seems no one on other threads can answer these questions so I will throw it out to everyone. So far only one person has even tried to answer them and his very first sentence invalidated his argument. Everyone else has avoided answering them like the plague.

    First some basic givens:

    A. Lemon v. Kurtzman establishes a three part test on whether a law is constitutional in regards to religion.

    1) It must have a secular primary purpose
    2) It can neither advance nor inhibit religion
    3) It can not result in excessive entanglement with religion

    This means that religion may not be used as the basis for law in the United States. If your argument is religious or relies on religious teaching or belief, it’s completely irrelevant.
    .
    .
    B. Marriage has been defined by the SCOTUS as a “right”

    Loving v. Virginia: "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."

    Turner v. Safely: “[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right” and marriage is an “expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.”

    Zablocki v. Redhail: “The right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”

    Cleveland Board of Education v LaFleur: “This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”​

    No less than four times and at least once more that I know of, the Supreme Court has defined marriage as a “right”
    .
    .
    C. According to the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution a citizen of the United States is entitled to equal protection under the law and equal access to the law. If a homosexual is a United States citizen they are protected by the 14th Amendment.

    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.
    .
    .
    D. Cleveland Board of Education v LaFleur and Loving v. Virginia, et. al. as well as the 8th and 9th Circuit Court of Appeals have determined that same-sex marriage falls under the protection of the 14th Amendment.

    The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals: "Plaintiffs challenge Proposition 8 under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Each challenge is independently meritorious, as Proposition 8 both unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation. The freedom to marry is recognized as a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause."


    The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals:" ...Proposition 8 has the 'peculiar property,' of withdrawing from homosexuals but no others an existing legal right - here, access to the official designation of 'marriage'..."

    "We consider whether [Proposition 8] violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. We conclude that it does."​
    .
    .
    E. No less than three ultra-liberal states have voted to ban gay marriage including California, Oregon, and Michigan by wide margins. In some of these liberal states even civil unions, domestic partnerships, and benefits related to domestic partnerships are banned. It is ridiculous to suggest that those bans passed in those states without significant support from Democrats.

    QUESTIONS

    1) What is the argument for denying United States citizens equal access to and protection under the law and denying their constitutional rights under the 14th Amendment that meets the conditions defined in Lemon v. Kurtzman by the Supreme Courts? (Hint: the moment you mention God, religion, or any moral code that is linked to religion you automatically invalidate your argument.)

    2) If question #1 cannot be satisfactorily answered, how can conservatives claim to be defenders of the United States Constitution while opposing the right of homosexuals to marry? Isn't a person who claims to defend the Constitution yet endorses the denial of Constitutional rights to a segment of society a flaming hypocrite?

    3) How can liberals point at the Republican party and feign any degree of contempt regarding gay marriage when in multiple states liberals have voted to deny homosexual rights (in some states) to an even greater level of extremity than Republicans have? How can they act contemptuous when for two years they had super-majorities (or very near it) in both houses of Congress and a liberal in the Oval Office and yet did absolutely nothing to address gay rights? Only later as the election neared did they repeal DADT (BFD). Can't liberals be considered flat out liars (or at the very least disingenuous) for claiming to support gay rights but dragging their feet to take action or flat out voting them down when the time comes?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 4
  2. BluePhantom
    Offline

    BluePhantom Educator (of liberals)

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2011
    Messages:
    7,062
    Thanks Received:
    1,738
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Portland, OR / Salem, OR
    Ratings:
    +3,137
    Just for further evidence on question #3 it's worth noting that the guy making this argument and asking these questions has a Romney icon in his signature.
     
  3. C_Clayton_Jones
    Offline

    C_Clayton_Jones Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2011
    Messages:
    41,543
    Thanks Received:
    8,933
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    In a Republic, actually
    Ratings:
    +23,869
    Two questions legal, and one political.

    Cowardice on the part of democrats, with regard to question three, the political question. Fear that if they come out ‘too strong’ in favor of same- sex couples’ access to marriage law they’d lose elections in more conservative jurisdictions.

    Needless to say I have no issue with questions one and two; those denying same-sex couples’ access to marriage laws have no compelling reason to justify the prohibition, they have no evidence in support of said prohibition, and the prohibition is clearly motivated by animus alone.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  4. Peach
    Offline

    Peach Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2009
    Messages:
    17,179
    Thanks Received:
    1,708
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Ratings:
    +1,965
    California is "ultra liberal" with a Republican governor? This a JOKE right?
     
  5. Peach
    Offline

    Peach Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2009
    Messages:
    17,179
    Thanks Received:
    1,708
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Ratings:
    +1,965
    Answer to all three questions: Hate, born of FEAR, and ignorance.
     
  6. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,570
    Thanks Received:
    5,902
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,989
    States have a compelling interest in defining regulating and licensing marriage. As such they are free to define it in such manner as EACH Individual State feels is the best interest of said State, this includes the wishes of the electorate of said State.

    The 14th does not somehow convey special privilege to someone based on sexual orientation. If a State Constitution states that marriage is between one man and one woman that simply does not violate the 14th amendment nor does it deny equal access to the law to anyone.

    Pretty simple concepts.
     
  7. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,570
    Thanks Received:
    5,902
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,989
    Keep proving just how fucking stupid you are.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  8. BluePhantom
    Offline

    BluePhantom Educator (of liberals)

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2011
    Messages:
    7,062
    Thanks Received:
    1,738
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Portland, OR / Salem, OR
    Ratings:
    +3,137
    California Governor Jerry Brown is a Democrat, my dear. Sorry to inform you of this. California has not gone to a GOP candidate since Reagan's re-election 24 years ago and the state legislature is 64% Democrat. Yeah...California is ultra-liberal. Good fucking Christ Peach.
     
  9. Katzndogz
    Offline

    Katzndogz Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2011
    Messages:
    65,659
    Thanks Received:
    7,418
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Ratings:
    +8,337
    Jerry Brown is a republican!!!! Who knew!!!

    California is totally democrat. Governor, Lt. Governor and Attorney General. Not just democrat but ultra liberal.
     
  10. BluePhantom
    Offline

    BluePhantom Educator (of liberals)

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2011
    Messages:
    7,062
    Thanks Received:
    1,738
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Portland, OR / Salem, OR
    Ratings:
    +3,137
    No shit.....good God almighty. Arguing that Cali is not liberal is like arguing that Pol Pot was a humanitarian
     

Share This Page