What inconsistency, you show with your lip service to the cause of equal rights for homosexual couples. Obama actually does approve since he is opposed to constitutional bans on gay marriage. You are the one who claims there is no difference between a President who wants to alter our constitution to permanently ban gay marriage, and a President who is against the ban on gay marriage. With support like your for gay marriage, they don't need enemies.
There's your rebuttal in your own words. Since marriage contracts are deemed necessary and regulated by law, and, since all US citizens are expressly afforded equal protection by the Constitution, the only logical conclusion is that marriage laws apply equally regardless of race, color, creed or sex. To me it's so blindingly obvious, I can't believe that there aren't armies of ambitious lawyers just out scouring the woods for cases to take to the Supreme Court.
Right, gov't shouldn't interfere in people's lives right? Gov't shouldn't tell who and who can't get married right? Wait, that would mean...contradiction. Conservative robot about to blow-up....ahhhhhhh [explodes]
The article noted by Finals is actually a pretty big deal being faced by various states -- well beyond whether the state bans or doesn't ban gay marriage. A gay couple can get married in another jurisdiction -- Canada -- for instance, just by coming up, having a ceremony -- and then, they're married. But divorce often requires residency for a certain amount of time. So they often cannot return to the marrying jurisdiction to undo that marriage unless one of them takes up residence there. So divorce is left to their home state's jurisdiction. If the home state refuses divorce on the basis of not being able to undo what it refused to allow to do, then the couple has no way to divorce. Which means two things: 1) They remain legally married against their will. These are individuals who felt strongly enough about the concept of 'marriage' they went to the effort and expense to make it happen. Like many hetero couples, they want to end that union. If it was a big deal to them to 'be' married, it's probably just as big a deal 'not to be' married. 2) If they later choose to remarry, they cannot do so, because they are already married (with no way of changing that). Totally crazy. And why, IMO, this State by State nonsense should stop.
Those groups based on "sexual preference" are not protected groups such as race, color, creed or sex. The next question is: Does Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibit discrimination based on sexual preference. The answer is no, Title VII does not recognize sexual preference as a protected class such as the classes you mentioned. Finally, however, each individual state is allowed to add more groups/classes to be protected for discrimination purposes. So it is up to the states, and Texas will be the last state to recognize them I'm sure. One reason you don't see armies of lawyers marching up to the courthouse is that their case is a weak one to bring to a court, in my opinion. Either way, it would be a bad idea to bring such a case during this political environment. The only thing that would happen is that you lose and then you set precedent against yourself for future cases. That is why the NAACP, or anyone for that matter, did not pursue a case like Brown v. Board immediately. They knew they would immediately lose and actually make it worse for racial groups. Instead they decided to chip away at precedent and build smaller cases and precedent until they reach the big case such as Brown v. Board Perhaps that is one reason this divorce Texas victory was done. Its a small chip but certainly not one that can overcome the obstacles I mentioned. I guess Texas can say that it is just giving Full Faith and Credit to the state that recognized the gay marriage. The Full Faith and Credit Clause, put simply, requires that one state must respect the laws of another state when it comes to such things as marriage. Therefore, when two gays are married already, it is arguable that you must provide the means for divorce. Gay rights activists have to hope that people start seeing sexual preference as genetic rather than a choice. Then you can start arguing it is discrimination based on something people cannot help being when they are born, such as skin color. Back in 2000 people considered sexual preference a choice, but now it is starting to gain momentum as thinking it is genetic.
Except that regulating marriage and issues of family is not given to the federal government in the Constitution. Therefore, Constitutionally speaking, it is reserved to the states.
I'm sure that's exactly what gay rights activist hope to achieve - for the nation to think that homosexuality is a genetic disorder "they can't help". There's no way we could think of them as second-class citizens if this were the belief, right? right?
Equal is equal, if everyone is allowed one contracted life partner for the purposes of medical decisions, survivorship issues, taxation law, etc. then everyone should have a right to chose whom that person will be. There is no demonstrable harm to the greater good in allowing same sex marriages. Not allowing them makes no legal or ethical sense. I'm just stumped that anyone would want to justify an intrusion into private lives by the government over what is essentially just prejudice.
I assume you are being sarcastic. If it is choice that men engage in sexual activity, then such choice speaks to morals. States are given the power pass laws regarding morality. They are not being treated as second-class citizens because there is no class at all. They simply are gay because they choose to engage in an act. Why group anybody for their choice in engaging in any other act? You might say, "Hey Pimphand24, that is all well and all, but we're talking about the right to marriage. Blah blah blah, marriage strict scrutiny blah blah." Well, there are state laws against 34 year olds who marry 17 yr olds (we of course are talking about states other than Alabama and such). And you say... well, they are 17! They cannot consent because 17 3/4 year olds don't know what they are doing! Let 3 months pass by and then everything changes and they know to consent or not. And then I say.. well LongTimeFan, what if both sets of parents approve, and the children are explained all of this, and the state laws are still against it? And you'll say, "blah blah blah blah blah" But here we are, 17 yr old wanting her right to marriage and not being able to have it. Why? Because the state finds it morally repugnant. But... Alabama and Louisiana, they don't find it morally repugnant. (This is where state's have their own powers to regulate morality) The 17 year old is allowed to go to other states and make the choice to get married. Once the 17 yr old is married in Louisiana for example, she can go to Vermont and have a divorce while she's 17 because Vermont must recognize Louisiana's marriage law. (Full Faith and Credit Clause) My 17 yr old argument actually has more merit than yours. Here, we have a 17 yr old, that doesn't have a choice on that matter that she's 17. But there is a limit to the right to marry. This limit covers 17 year olds; this limit covers men who want to marry other men. HOWEVER, if homosexuality is genetic... they are actually being discriminated against for something they have no control over. Then they'd be treated as second-class citizens. Then you might say, but... but... Lawrence v. Texas. Two gay men, having sex in Texas, in their own house. After all, they won in Supreme Court. And then I'll look down and shake my head and say, "That case is about privacy rights, not gay rights. I think the only protected class that is by choice is Religion. I think we both can agree that religious beliefs in the U.S. is on a completely different level of care than even race and sex, or national origin. And still ,religion is imposed upon you when you are 1 day old. No choice to engage in sex is of such a nature as the protected classes I mentioned. What you need is a very, very, very liberal panel of activist judges. And I mean LIBERAL, because not even normal liberal judges would deem them a protected class at the moment. OR you can hope that legislators choose to amend Title VII to include sexual orientation (good luck with that). THAT BEING SAID, I understand why you were taken aback. if I was gay I wouldn't want to be characterized as having it in my blood, as if I am some sort of mutation that is not meant to exist under Darwinian principles. I want to be considered as having free will: I am not forced to engage in such a sexual act, but rather I CHOOSE to engage in the act. And... the state would say. Okay good, I'm glad you've come to terms with it, now we will regulate you. Grin and bear it. If I engaged in such an act, I think I would be defiant and wear it as a badge of honor. (Why want to be like the others? Gays have an opportunity to be something new, something original. To redefine relationships. Why do many gays want to take on the same existing gender roles, like having one man as the dominant, big male while another one is the subordinate pretty boy type. And same for lesbians. This I don't understand. Be something new, accept your choice to be different and be proud of it.) ......but hey, I'm not the one who has to face such discrimination so what do I know! But the point still stands: You want to deem them a protected class because they choose to do something. Why not protect other "classes" that choose to do something. Public drinking laws. Homeless people have no choice but to drink in public when they want to drink alcohol. Where's their justice!?!?! (Don't get hung up on this last point, it was mainly a joke, focus on my earlier points. Thanks.)
This, of course, ignores the point that I raised earlier in this thread. This is not about gay rights. It is about property rights. Heterosexual couples have a divorce statute in every state by which both parties to the relationship have their rights to property acquired during the relationship protected by law. Homosexuals have no such available protection. That just seems wrong to me.
There are lots of things in society that have changed that we used to say "that's the way it goes." A "marriage" is a creation of the church. The church can discriminate according to the common beliefs of the followers. No problem there. The union recognized by the state is completely different. Give a good justification for not extending protection of property rights to homosexuals. You know...other than "just because."
Ah yes, I wasn't trying to address your point. Your point would actually require me to do research into some distinctions. I was hoping to get to it perhaps after dinner, or perhaps tomorrow. It may be so much work that it not be worth looking up for the purpose of a Rockets fan board. We'll seee....
Actually Ref...as I understand it, this case, and cases like it, are even more basic then property rights and who is entitled to what. It's not deciding what happens when you divorce -- but rather whether you can divorce at all. The property rights is big injustice (IMO) but that goes more to the debate about gay marriage as a whole (on which we've had more then a few threads). This is a quirk in the law that the individual states are struggling with. How do you grant the dissolution of a union when you do not recognize the union in the first place? You'll note the judge's comments Property rights might be a progression from this. But not necessarily. Since he's clear his ruling is not meant to recognize gay marriage, a gay couple would have to argue that property rights had accrued in a marriage, that, at least in Texas, didn't exist. A separate battle.
I support gay marriage but I think it's ultimately an early developmental orientation, meaning it's neither genetic or a choice. I really don't want scientists on either side of this debate trying to isolate or eradicate a "gay gene."
