nuna nuna wrote:

---

1) I'm not sure if rights that pertain to marriage are called out as protected

They may in fact not be, however that does not change the fact, that if you deny any person or couple the ability to have an equal union, that you would permit a straight couple, that is discrimination, and there fore unconstitutional. Cafu there may not be hard fast rules set in place for constitutional rights for homosexuals yet, but the legal trends of the past 20 years have basically done that anyway. For example, you can't discriminate when renting a house, or interviewing for a job, on the basis of sexual orientation. To do so would be grounds for a discrimination lawsuit. This goes above rights of homosexuals anyway. This is about allowing every person the same right no matter the gender of the people involved in the union. The bottom line is they are people, and every person is to be treated equal in this country. Once you start to say " you 2 can do it, but you 2 can't", it becomes an obvious discriminatory rule.

No...actually it isn't. Marriage,recognized by the state, is not a right. It's a privilege. As such, the state and the federal government can determine where and how that privilege can be executed as long as the prohibition does not contradict any established constitutional rights. There is no prohibition against discrimination based on sexual orientation in the U.S. Constitution. Therefore it is perfectly consitutionally legal to prohibit gay marriage for this reason alone.

In addition, there is no marriage law that gives the privilege of marrying the person you are attracted to or in love with. The law guarantees you the ability to tie your fortunes to a member of the opposite sex, and therefore, gay or straight, everyone has the same right. In addition, no two people of the same sex can marry, be they gay or straight. To straight men have no more right to marry than two gay men, and therefore both groups are equally prohibited.

Discrimination is NOT unconstitutional. Discrimination against certain well spelled out groups in certain well spelled out situations is unconsititutional. You are perfectly able to discriminate against all other non-protected groups, legally. And you can discriminate against even the protected groups in the right situation. All day long MGM can refuse to hire an African American or a woman to play a part in a movie. And you can refuse to hire a fat guy all day long for almost anything. The fire department can refuse to hire a quadriplegic person for a ladder truck position. Disrimination is absolutely legal in many situations.

And the same is true with gay marriage. You can legally prohibit people from marrying the same sex. That's just legally mind you...that has nothing to do with morally. But in a legal sense, thems the facts...and the reason why I doubt SCoTUS will get into this.

Morally, it's reprehensible that you can't join with the person you love, regardless of their sex, as long as they're legally capable of signing the contract. And for this reason, the government should get out of the marriage game altogether and leave marriage to the church as something that's nice, but has no legal standing. There should be domestic partnership contracts for gay and straight alike, executable only by an officer of the court and no other, and end all this bullshit arguing.

peace,
Aielman

Ididar Tzan wrote:

---

Aielman,

By that logic, of two heterosexual men wanting to marry, it should fall under simple sex discrimination. Is there any other law stating that its legal to prevent someone from entering a contract based on their sex? I don't mean sexual orientation ... I mean simply that they're male or female. Is there any other case of, say, a female not being able to enter into a contract with another female? Or a male with another male? I know men entering into all sorts of contracts with other men on a regular basis in business. What makes the contract of marriage exempt from discrimination based on gender?

Any parties can limit any contract. In this case, the state is one of the parties. Marriage, in it's legal form, isn't a two party contract...it's a three party contract. The man, the woman, and the state.

This has everything to do with equal protection of privileges and rights guaranteed any American under the law.

Yes...but everyone has the same equal privilege. Everyone can marry someone of the opposite sex...regardless of their sexual preference. And everyone is equally prohibited...they are not allowed to marry someone of the same sex...regardless of their sexual preference.

Marriage laws make no mention of sexual preference. They make mention of gender. Everyone is equally able to marry someone of a different gender. The 14th doesn't apply.

Did they EXPAND women's rights or did they always have the right to equal treatment and the courts just ENFORCED it?

They expanded them...with an amendment to the constitution.

peace,
Aielman

Galidin wrote:

---

Really Aielman?

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."

So the only white male land owners owning businesses law is ok then right aielman? No constitutional problem exists right?

Um...no. The 19th amendment, which you quoted, guarantees just what it says. So, no...it wouldn't be all right, and yes, a constitutional problem would exist.

We're "Equally" applying the rule that only white male land owners can run businesses to everyone...

Um...no..."We're" not. There's a specific prohibition to the condition you describe.

Or are you under the "liberal judges making law" argument that by the constitution women don't have equal rights of men and that's just a made up thing in the courts by liberal judges reading too much into things like "all citizens" to include WOMEN or GAYS or groups CLEARLY not intended to be included and that the idea that you somehow could not make laws that say "only white male land owners" is just bullshit liberal create-a-right justice?

Ok...well first of all, punctuation is yoru friend. Second of all...you're blathering. "Liberal judges making law" has fuck all to do with it. There's a 19th amendment to the constitution that expanded women's rights, so your analogy makes no frigging sense. The amendment doesn't include gays, in point of fact, makes no mention of gays whatsoever in terms of their sexual preference...it only addresses gender.

So I really don't see what the hell you're trying to get at with your "only white male land owners" crap...because it doesn't make any sense. There is are specific amendments that specifically address that specific situation.

So what the fuck, if anything, are you trying to get at?

peace,
Aielman

Galidin wrote:

---

REALLY? READ THIS ONE MORE TIME:

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."

Yes..."sex" being gender...not who you're fucking.

Is OWNING A BUSINESS "VOTING"?

No. Owning a business is not voting.

By your "marriage is between a man and woman and we're equally that law to any gay" then I'm equally applying my "only white male land owners" law to women am I not?

Can you slow down your typing a bit and make coherent sentences? This really doesn't make much sense. You're "equally applying my 'only white male land owners' law" analogy is worthless. You're applying something to someone there is a specific amendment to the constitution to address.

Pay attention here...here's the cruxt of this. There is nowhere, in any article, or in any amendment, any guarantee of rights or privileges specifically based on sexual orientation. There should be...but there isn't. Feel free to do a search. Thus there is no federal protection, whatsoever, guaranteeing equal rights based on sexual preference alone. Gender...Race...Religious preference, yes. Sexual orientation No. This is why there has been no successful challenge to the federal DOMA statute. All challenges, successful or otherwise, thus far have been at the state level.

The 19th amendment has fuck all to do with the sexual act and who you prefer or are genitically wired to prefer. It has to do with your gender. The "sex" it speaks of is gender...not who you knock boots with. The amendment was specifically enacted to specifically address an expansion of women's rights. It doesn't address anything else but discrimination based on gender.

So your hypothetical question makes zero sense at all. You're trying to link a hypothetical situation based on something that is already constitutionally prohibited as a way to illustrate some link to something that isn't constitutionally prohibited. If you're looking for an amendment that might, in the eyes of the court, have some bearing on the discussion, then you need to turn to the 14th as Afmo has. It's the only amendment that comes close to the arugment you appear to be trying to make.

You'd still be wrong in my opinion, but at least you'd be intelligable.

peace,
Aielman