BluePhantom
Educator (of liberals)
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.
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, its completely irrelevant.
.
.
B. Marriage has been defined by the SCOTUS as a right
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.
.
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.
.
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?
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
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, its 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.
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.
.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."
.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?
