Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
in the end, this is obviously a numbers game. i would hope that another initiative is mounted, and soon, and that this time people who do not support the relegation of people who happen to be gay to a second-class status will find themselves defeated in california as they have been in state after state.
|
Wait. What states are those? Because I must have missed them.
And, for the love of God man, disagreeing with gay marriage does not equal "relegating gays to second class citizenry".
Quote:
|
there is no argument, no belief, no system of beliefs that enables folk to arrogate to themselves the prerogative to tell people who are not them who they can and cannot choose to love.
|
You can love whom you wish. No one's ever debated that.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
well this is totally false. All one needs to do is look up cases that were affected by the Lautenberg amendment.
|
Well, I have to say that's news to me because the U.S. Constitution explicitly prohibits retroactive laws.
Quote:
|
They'd have to be fools if they do, unless they can come up with a very convincing opinion laying out why equal protection doesn't apply in this particular instance....other than the standard 'we disagree' sentence. Doing so would basically render the USSC irrelevant and people and states would tell the feds to finally fuck off.
|
Not really. You're assuming that sexuality is a suspect class offered full protection under the 14th Amendment.
Quote:
|
say what? and you can prove that it isn't? for instance, you can show in any state constitution that it says you can only marry who the state says you can?
|
Huh? 20-something states, I believe, have passed constitutional amendments which limit marriage to one man and one woman.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derwood
right, privilege, Happy Meal Toy.....whatever you want to call it, it's being granted carte blanche to some (heterosexuals) and denied to others (homosexuals). You can play the semantics game all day, but the facts remain the facts.
|
What facts? What argument? Gays are not specifically prohibited from marrying nor are they specifically targeted by any measure. Your problem is that you assume the latter two statements to be true whilst simultaneously ignoring the fact that there is no fundamental difference in limiting marriages based on the genders of the persons looking to be wed and limiting marriages based on age, consanguinity or even number of persons looking to be wed. Yes, I went there.
Passing it off as semantics doesn't make it semantics. It means that you don't fully understand what it is you're arguing about/for. You can argue for same-sex marriages all you want, but to insinuate denying people the ability to enter into same-sex marriages is discriminatory is simply inane.