What do we agree upon?

[Lonestar_logic]

There was a post that said something along the line about homosexual marriage and equal rights. That was the post I meant to respond to.

If you were trying to respond to MY post, I talked about equal protection - not equal rights.

Define "equal protection" and explain how you homosexuals are not given equal protection.

I define it as:

A clause set out in the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution that dictates that state governments cannot pass or enforce any laws based solely on a specific classification of person by race, gender, religion, ethnicity, or age.

One of the main limitations in the Equal Protection Clause is that it limits only the powers of government bodies, and not the private parties on whom it confers equal protection. This limitation has existed since 1883 and has not been overturned.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Spin it any way you want. The facts speaks for themselves. You failed to prove your claim.

I posted four links to studies and statistics that proved my claim. You read the first sentence of my first link and claimed it contradicted my point while that particular sentence had no bearing on my claim at all. When I pointed that out - you ran away.

Fact is you got that wrong - you got WHO posted equal protection wrong and you were wrong about claiming it was a post on equal rights.

You ain't batting for a very good average today tex.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Define "equal protection" and explain how you homosexuals are not given equal protection.

Number one: Calling people you disagree with homosexuals is sophomoric and speaks very poorly of your ability to sustain rational debate.

Number two: You haven't demonstrated the ability to follow along with extensive explanations. You have a propensity for taking a tiny element of an argument and drawing an erroneous conclusion about it. Add your failure to acknowledge your mistakes and I am left with no confidence in your ability to understand/respond to a legal argument such as this. (Please see my post above.)

Number three: I'll give it to you anyway because other posters who are more capable and deligent deserve the information:

The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized a fundamental right to marry, creating a threshold of basic marriage recognition that states must meet at a minimum to avoid violating the federal constitution. In other words, states must allow some marriage rights to their citizens. State constitutions tend to follow similar reasoning under their own due process clauses. Part of the right to liberty is unquestionably the right to marry.

If the state court finds that the right challenged is the right to marry, and the question is whether the state has a justification for denying same-sex couples that right, it becomes easier for an attorney representing the plaintiff(s) in such a case to argue that there is a violation of a fundamental liberty interest. The best way for the attorney to make the argument is to say that the right in question is the right to marry the partner of one's choice. This relies on a familiar notion of individual liberty and includes same-sex partners in the analysis.

The next argument an attorney can make is that denial of the right to marry is an equality issue. However, to show that a state action violates equal protection, under the state or federal constitution, the plaintiffs must meet a certain standard based on whether or not they fall into a suspect or quasi-suspect classification. If they do not, the standard will be deferential rational basis review, and although this can have some teeth in some states, it is still preferable to find a way to argue suspect classification so that the state has to meet a higher burden.

Read more: The Constitutional Same Sex Marriage Debate: Legal Arguments on Equal Protection and Due Process | Suite101.com

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Lonestar you are familiar with the SC ruling that states that "seperate but equal" is NOT equal.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

I am afraid that in 60-100 years MOST of us will be as embarresed by denying gays the right to marry as we are about denying interracial marriage.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Interestingly MANY of the same arguments against gay marriage are the SAME that were used to deny interracial marriage.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

You know that interracial children will get teased and beat up. That they won't have an identity. They will be born mutated because white and black genes won't blend properly.

 

[Vast LWC]

There was a post that said something along the line about homosexual marriage and equal rights. That was the post I meant to respond to.

If you were trying to respond to MY post, I talked about equal protection - not equal rights.

Define "equal protection" and explain how you homosexuals are not given equal protection.

I define it as:

A clause set out in the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution that dictates that state governments cannot pass or enforce any laws based solely on a specific classification of person by race, gender, religion, ethnicity, or age.

One of the main limitations in the Equal Protection Clause is that it limits only the powers of government bodies, and not the private parties on whom it confers equal protection. This limitation has existed since 1883 and has not been overturned.

The Civil Rights Act covers this, as far as employment is concerned anyway:

Title VII of the Act, codified as Subchapter VI of Chapter 21 of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e [2] et seq., prohibits discrimination by covered employers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin (see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2[21]).

Title VII also prohibits discrimination against an individual because of his or her association with another individual of a particular race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. An employer cannot discriminate against a person because of his interracial association with another, such as by an interracial marriage.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

I'm a far-left radical progressive anarcho-socialist, but I agree with conservatives on the following:

The current "plans" for healthcare reform suck. Conservatives don't like it because of propganda about socialism and marxism and because they believe the government can't be trusted to run anything well (and there is merit to that belief), I don't like it because its nothing like socialism at all, doesn't cover everyone, doesn't make healthcare a right for US citizens, won't stop rationed care, and won't stop insurance companies from not paying claims for people who've spent tens of thousands of dollars on health coverage - in other words, it won't protect consumers.

Obama hasn't kept his word about government transparency. And has been as bad as Bush.

There is more.

 

[Yukon]

Homsexuals are sick and perverted and deserve no special protection whatsoever.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Homsexuals are sick and perverted and deserve no special protection whatsoever.

Yeah I bet you would have been at the front of the line to prevent interracial marriage too.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Oh and by the way Yukon nobody says you have to like it what we are saying is that there is not LEGAL reason to deny it.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Homsexuals are sick and perverted and deserve no special protection whatsoever.

IMHO They deserve EQUAL protection, as do all human beings.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Spin it any way you want. The facts speaks for themselves. You failed to prove your claim.

I posted four links to studies and statistics that proved my claim. You read the first sentence of my first link and claimed it contradicted my point while that particular sentence had no bearing on my claim at all. When I pointed that out - you ran away.

Fact is you got that wrong - you got WHO posted equal protection wrong and you were wrong about claiming it was a post on equal rights.

You ain't batting for a very good average today tex.

Trust me no one is running away from your pompous ass.

You say they proved you claim I disagree. So there you have it. Now stop your whining!

Oh noooo I made a mistake? Sue me!!!

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Define "equal protection" and explain how you homosexuals are not given equal protection.

Number one: Calling people you disagree with homosexuals is sophomoric and speaks very poorly of your ability to sustain rational debate.
I just call 'em like I see 'em. Can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen.

Number two: You haven't demonstrated the ability to follow along with extensive explanations. You have a propensity for taking a tiny element of an argument and drawing an erroneous conclusion about it. Add your failure to acknowledge your mistakes and I am left with no confidence in your ability to understand/respond to a legal argument such as this. (Please see my post above.)
This explains what? Oh your inability to stay on topic. I got it!


Number three: I'll give it to you anyway because other posters who are more capable and deligent deserve the information:
How does the SCOTUS define "marriage"?


The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized a fundamental right to marry, creating a threshold of basic marriage recognition that states must meet at a minimum to avoid violating the federal constitution. In other words, states must allow some marriage rights to their citizens. State constitutions tend to follow similar reasoning under their own due process clauses. Part of the right to liberty is unquestionably the right to marry.

If the state court finds that the right challenged is the right to marry, and the question is whether the state has a justification for denying same-sex couples that right, it becomes easier for an attorney representing the plaintiff(s) in such a case to argue that there is a violation of a fundamental liberty interest. The best way for the attorney to make the argument is to say that the right in question is the right to marry the partner of one's choice. This relies on a familiar notion of individual liberty and includes same-sex partners in the analysis.

The next argument an attorney can make is that denial of the right to marry is an equality issue. However, to show that a state action violates equal protection, under the state or federal constitution, the plaintiffs must meet a certain standard based on whether or not they fall into a suspect or quasi-suspect classification. If they do not, the standard will be deferential rational basis review, and although this can have some teeth in some states, it is still preferable to find a way to argue suspect classification so that the state has to meet a higher burden.

Read more: The Constitutional Same Sex Marriage Debate: Legal Arguments on Equal Protection and Due Process | Suite101.com

My comments are in bold letters.

 

[JBeukema]

tive energy to the largest extent possible.

You homosexuals have the same rights as every other citizen. You can fuck each other enter into a civil union 'til you die. You just can't get "married" in the traditional sense of the word.[/quote]

Which tradition? the Christian tradition of five wives, seven mistresses, a few female sex slaves...?

 

[nodoginnafight]

Trust me no one is running away from your pompous ass. You say they proved you claim I disagree. So there you have it. Now stop your whining! Oh noooo I made a mistake? Sue me!!!

Yes, I say they proved my claim and if you had actually read them, you'd understand why.

Apology accepted.

 

[JBeukema]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PscogedAWTI&feature=channel]YouTube - Eurythmics - Here Comes The Rain Again[/ame]

Yea, the Eurythmics were awesome...
​

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Oh and about the homosexual marriage issue.

In two consolidated cases, separate groups of same-sex couples challenged the marriage laws of the state. Two trial courts had ruled that the state marriage laws were unconstitutional. On appeal, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of the constitutionality of the marriage law in a decision resulting in six written opinions.

The plurality opened its opinion noting that the cases "require us to decide whether the legislature has the power to limit marriage in Washington State to same-sex couples. The state constitution and controlling case law compel us to answer 'yes.'" Since this case does not involve a "grant of positive favoritism to a minority class," the court applied traditional federal equal protection analysis to plaintiffs "privileges and immunities" claims under the state constitution. The plurality held that sexual orientation is not a suspect class because, although homosexuals have been discriminated against, they have not shown immutability and recent legislation shows that they "exercise increasing political power."

The plurality noted that Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas don't change this result. The plurality then held that there is no fundamental right to same-sex marriage because that status is not premised on history or tradition and U.S. Supreme Court precedent on fundamental rights has usually linked marriage to procreation.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Lonestar you are familiar with the SC ruling that states that "seperate but equal" is NOT equal.

Yes n 1896, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that racially separate facilities, if equal, did not violate the Constitution. Segregation, the Court said, was not discrimination.