Quote:
Originally Posted by Tully Mars
Got a ruling I can go look up so I have some idea of what you're talking about?
|
Erm... It was in the Baker v. Nelson link I gave you earlier.
Quote:
Loving does indicate that not all state restrictions upon the right to marry are beyond reach of the Fourteenth Amendment. But in commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex.
We hold, therefore, that Minn.St. c. 517 does not offend the First, Eighth, Ninth, or Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
Affirmed.
|
Quote:
|
In this case convicts have done some to lose that right, right? Again is there some right that isn't universal?
|
The group labeled as "convicts" never possessed the right. People entering in that group lose the rights they once had.
Quote:
|
No, but there are some laws that stop homosexuals from marrying the person they love and want to have a family with, that's discriminatory. Gay aren't trying to stop anyone else rights they just want the same rights as others.
|
Laws, by their nature, are "discriminatory" (They have to be) but that does not mean that Prop 8 discriminates against homosexuals, as it doesn't. Or, I should say, it does not single out homosexuals.
Quote:
You brought up the issue of 'socially and sexually legitimate" in your previous post. I'm simply responding to your post, in fact I copied and pasted the term out of your post. I don't see it now. Which means I'm either missing it or you've edited your post. If you edited your post that's a cute move.
So, what is with the mention of legitimacy? You brought it up.
|
Someone else brought it up. I merely responded to it.
Quote:
|
Again just stops them from marrying who they love. Which is pure discrimination.
|
No, it isn't.
I'll be back in a bit.