A Legal Fork for SCOTUS: How to Arrange Alphabet Soup Into a Viable Static Class.

[Silhouette]

What the future of the LGBTQ movement holds Portland Pride 2015 OregonLive.com

Debra Porta, president of Pride Northwest – the nonprofit that organized this weekend's Portland Pride festivities – said the LGBTQ movement has a very strong future ahead, but it hinges on the community all sticking together...."Gay" became LGB to recognize lesbians and bisexuals. It grew into LGBT with the addition of the trans community, then to LGBTQ with those who identify as queer or questioning. Some intersex people have even pushed for an extension to LGBTIQ....It's a mouthful, to say the least....

The "alphabet soup" as some in the community call it, is consistently under discussion, Porta said, leading to alternative catchall terms for the diverse group. Some have suggested GSRM – Gender, Sexual and Romantic Minorities – or the increasingly popular description "gender non-conforming."...The word "queer" has gained a lot of steam lately, but older people in the movement bristle at a word that was once thrown so commonly as a slur...."The phrasing that someone chooses to use is very sort of individual, and a lot of it is very generational," Porta said.

So a shifting sexual deviant group that morphs within the individual and the group and morphs through time as well, wants special class recognition and protections.

This presents a problem. In order to identify a person who is deserving of a special class distinction, that person himself needs to recognize what he or she or it or ?? is first. And once recognized, that person can't change away from that static status day to day or year to year. That would be a legal nightmare to nail down and apply in actual courtrooms. You could literally make up any type of deviant behavior you like and include it under this shifting rainbow umbrella. One year you could sue someone for not recognizing you as a woman. The next year, for not recognizing you as a man when you switched back.

I like the soup analogy better than an umbrella though. Trying to nail down what exactly an 'LGBT...??' person is is like trying to eat soup with a fork. Have fun parsing out all the lawsuits in the future!

 

[Silhouette]

Thanks to Nova Steve for pointing out this revealing article in the OP.

 

[Skylar]

What the future of the LGBTQ movement holds Portland Pride 2015 OregonLive.com

Debra Porta, president of Pride Northwest – the nonprofit that organized this weekend's Portland Pride festivities – said the LGBTQ movement has a very strong future ahead, but it hinges on the community all sticking together...."Gay" became LGB to recognize lesbians and bisexuals. It grew into LGBT with the addition of the trans community, then to LGBTQ with those who identify as queer or questioning. Some intersex people have even pushed for an extension to LGBTIQ....It's a mouthful, to say the least....

The "alphabet soup" as some in the community call it, is consistently under discussion, Porta said, leading to alternative catchall terms for the diverse group. Some have suggested GSRM – Gender, Sexual and Romantic Minorities – or the increasingly popular description "gender non-conforming."...The word "queer" has gained a lot of steam lately, but older people in the movement bristle at a word that was once thrown so commonly as a slur...."The phrasing that someone chooses to use is very sort of individual, and a lot of it is very generational," Porta said.

So a shifting sexual deviant group that morphs within the individual and the group and morphs through time as well, wants special class recognition and protections.

Romer v Evans already settled the question of whether or not gays were protected from discrimination in the law......almost 20 years ago.

We must conclude that Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This Colorado cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws. Amendment 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause, and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Colorado is affirmed.

Romer Governor of Colorado et al. v. Evans et al. 517 U.S. 620 1996 .

You're a little late to the party.

This presents a problem. In order to identify a person who is deserving of a special class distinction, that person himself needs to recognize what he or she or it or ?? is first. And once recognized, that person can't change away from that static status day to day or year to year. That would be a legal nightmare to nail down and apply in actual courtrooms. You could literally make up any type of deviant behavior you like and include it under this shifting rainbow umbrella. One year you could sue someone for not recognizing you as a woman. The next year, for not recognizing you as a man when you switched back.

There's no requirement that a status be 'static'. Take....religious folks. They can change their religion on a daily basis. With the only one able to tell you what faith they follow being themselves. Yet they're protected from discrimination just like blacks, women or gays.

You've made up a legal requirement. The 'static' nonsense isn't a legal standard. It isn't a requirement for protection. And the courts have never used it once regarding gays lesbians. But have found them protected from discrimination in Romer v. Evans, Lawerence v. Texas and Windsor v. US.

Rendering your pseudo-legal standard legally irrelevant.

 

[Zander]

Isn't the Q redundant?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

SILHOUETTE SAID:

“This presents a problem.”

Actually not.

The protected liberty of choice concerning one's life, personal matters, and self-determination is a right safeguarded by the Fifth Amendment:

“It suffices for us to acknowledge that adults may choose to enter upon this relationship in the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons. When sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring. The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice.
[…]
Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives [homosexuals] the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government.”

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

Whether homosexuality manifest as a consequence of birth or choice is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant, it has no bearing whatsoever on the protected liberties of gay Americans, it does not remove from them their status as a protected class of persons, where their right to due process and equal protection of the law remains immune from attack by the state.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

There should be no "special protections" for anyone. That's half our problem. Every wacko group in the country thinks they should be "special".

 

[Anathema]

NO. Mostly because there should not BE any "special classes" to begin with.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

What the future of the LGBTQ movement holds Portland Pride 2015 OregonLive.com

Debra Porta, president of Pride Northwest – the nonprofit that organized this weekend's Portland Pride festivities – said the LGBTQ movement has a very strong future ahead, but it hinges on the community all sticking together...."Gay" became LGB to recognize lesbians and bisexuals. It grew into LGBT with the addition of the trans community, then to LGBTQ with those who identify as queer or questioning. Some intersex people have even pushed for an extension to LGBTIQ....It's a mouthful, to say the least....

The "alphabet soup" as some in the community call it, is consistently under discussion, Porta said, leading to alternative catchall terms for the diverse group. Some have suggested GSRM – Gender, Sexual and Romantic Minorities – or the increasingly popular description "gender non-conforming."...The word "queer" has gained a lot of steam lately, but older people in the movement bristle at a word that was once thrown so commonly as a slur...."The phrasing that someone chooses to use is very sort of individual, and a lot of it is very generational," Porta said.

So a shifting sexual deviant group that morphs within the individual and the group and morphs through time as well, wants special class recognition and protections.

This presents a problem. In order to identify a person who is deserving of a special class distinction, that person himself needs to recognize what he or she or it or ?? is first. And once recognized, that person can't change away from that static status day to day or year to year. That would be a legal nightmare to nail down and apply in actual courtrooms. You could literally make up any type of deviant behavior you like and include it under this shifting rainbow umbrella. One year you could sue someone for not recognizing you as a woman. The next year, for not recognizing you as a man when you switched back.

I like the soup analogy better than an umbrella though. Trying to nail down what exactly an 'LGBT...??' person is is like trying to eat soup with a fork. Have fun parsing out all the lawsuits in the future!

Major issue for you is it?

 

[Silhouette]

Romer v Evans already settled the question of whether or not gays were protected from discrimination in the law......almost 20 years ago..

I have no doubt whatsoever that given the choice between protecting "adults' rights to sexually deviant lifestyles" vs "childrens' rights to a home with a father and a mother; and the sovereign states rights to determine that", the latter will win.

And if they have to revisit and overturn previous case law to achieve the goal of children's wellbeing, I'm certain they will.

 

[Silhouette]

Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives [homosexuals] the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government.”

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

Whether homosexuality manifest as a consequence of birth or choice is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant, it has no bearing whatsoever on the protected liberties of gay Americans, it does not remove from them their status as a protected class of persons, where their right to due process and equal protection of the law remains immune from attack by the state.

Yes, just like decriminalizing marijuana use gives the user full rights to engage in their conduct. But it doesn't mean it grants potheads the right to rewrite the laws of drug use across the US forcing all 50 states to allow pot smoking in public.

As it turns out, a behavior vs a static state DOES matter as to the 14th Amendment. Only one category protected there covers behaviors. That's "freedom of religion". Best get to getting your tax-exempt status nailed down. Your cult already has its dogma, evangelizing to kids and swift punishment for heresy in the bag.

 

[Silhouette]

There should be no "special protections" for anyone. That's half our problem. Every wacko group in the country thinks they should be "special".

I made a point a few times that bulimics (Bulimic Americans) should organize for vomit urns on restaurant tables. We as a society are "hatefully" requiring them to confine their eating-orientation to the bathroom stalls when dinner is done. What bulimaphobes we are! They can't change who they are. The success rate for reparative therapy for bulimics is pretty low as I understand it..

 

[Skylar]

Isn't the Q redundant?

it isn't. Its the least nutty option in my opinion. Even folks in the community were getting a little sick of all the extra letters being added. "Q' was added for all other designations plus supporters of the community. You don't have to be gay to be 'Q'.

LGBTQ is still a bit of a mouthful.

 

[Skylar]

There should be no "special protections" for anyone. That's half our problem. Every wacko group in the country thinks they should be "special".

Gays are looking to marry. That's not 'special'. That's pretty ordinary. And Romer overturned a law that explicitly excluded gays from protection from discrimination. They wanted the same protections that everyone else had. Lawence v. Texas didn't grant gays 'special' rights. They could have consensual sex just like anyone else...without it being criminalized.

 

[Skylar]

Romer v Evans already settled the question of whether or not gays were protected from discrimination in the law......almost 20 years ago..

I have no doubt whatsoever that given the choice between protecting "adults' rights to sexually deviant lifestyles" vs "childrens' rights to a home with a father and a mother; and the sovereign states rights to determine that", the latter will win.

Your standard was a protected class. You've admitted that Romer recognizes gays as protected. Disproving your claim.

Remember, you don't actually have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

 

[Silhouette]

Romer v Evans already settled the question of whether or not gays were protected from discrimination in the law......almost 20 years ago..

I have no doubt whatsoever that given the choice between protecting "adults' rights to sexually deviant lifestyles" vs "childrens' rights to a home with a father and a mother; and the sovereign states rights to determine that", the latter will win.

Your standard was a protected class. You've admitted that Romer recognizes gays as protected. Disproving your claim.

Remember, you don't actually have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

What other behaviors repugnant to the majority would you exclude from getting special protection Skylar? Or more importantly, what other behaviors repugnant to the majority would SCOTUS be able to exclude from getting special protection also?

 

[Skylar]

Romer v Evans already settled the question of whether or not gays were protected from discrimination in the law......almost 20 years ago..

I have no doubt whatsoever that given the choice between protecting "adults' rights to sexually deviant lifestyles" vs "childrens' rights to a home with a father and a mother; and the sovereign states rights to determine that", the latter will win.

Your standard was a protected class. You've admitted that Romer recognizes gays as protected. Disproving your claim.

Remember, you don't actually have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

What other behaviors repugnant to the majority would you exclude from getting special protection Skylar? Or more importantly, what other behaviors repugnant to the majority would SCOTUS be able to exclude from getting special protection also?

The majority supports gay marriage. Nixing your argument even hypothetically.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

SILHOUETTE SAID:

“What other behaviors repugnant to the majority would you exclude from getting special protection Skylar? Or more importantly, what other behaviors repugnant to the majority would SCOTUS be able to exclude from getting special protection also?”

That you perceive homosexuality as 'repugnant' is subjective, unfounded, and legally irrelevant.

Indeed, the ignorance and hate you exhibit toward gay Americans is in fact repugnant to the Constitution, which warrants the status of gay Americans as a protected class of persons.

If you disagree with gay Americans constituting a protected class of persons entitled to 14th Amendment protections, then stop seeking to disadvantage them through force of law, such as denying them access to marriage – the issue will consequently go away, never to trouble you again.

 

[whitehall]

What does miz, mr, miss or senior Porta mean by "stick together"? Knowing the gay community it could mean anything. The one thing a hairy man in a dress seeks the most and is never going to get is "acceptance". Americans have to know their rights and no matter how the gay community "sticks together" and blackmails normal society we have the legal right to laugh and ridicule their antics.

 

[paddymurphy]

There should be no "special protections" for anyone. That's half our problem. Every wacko group in the country thinks they should be "special".

There are no "special protections" for anyone. That comment could only be made by one wholly ignorant of the law on discrimination. Everyone is protected from discrimination that is based on race, gender, age, ethnicity, religion or real or perceived disability. Those protections are not special; they are simply extending to all Americans the same rights long enjoyed by those in the majority, white, male, christian, straight, not disabled.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

There should be no "special protections" for anyone. That's half our problem. Every wacko group in the country thinks they should be "special".

There are no "special protections" for anyone. That comment could only be made by one wholly ignorant of the law on discrimination. Everyone is protected from discrimination that is based on race, gender, age, ethnicity, religion or real or perceived disability. Those protections are not special; they are simply extending to all Americans the same rights long enjoyed by those in the majority, white, male, christian, straight, not disabled.

So, if "protected classes" are not protected, what need for "protected classes"?

What Are The Protected Classes Under Discrimination Laws - Attorneys.com