How to Explain Gay Rights to Dummies

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]JEATON wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

“but it’s not NATURAL”. Actually, it is. Take a look at MANY other species in the animal kingdom and you will see plenty of examples of homosexuality/bisexuality/etc…

[/quote]

Your other points aside, this particular claim always annoys the shit out of me. It is total and complete bullshit.

Yes, you can find examples of animals who mimic sexual acts or even attempt sexual acts with same sex members of their own specials or even other species. Pheromones, etc. trigger short term momentary impulses that lead to the acting out of sexual behavior. For a moment! The animals do not them go out and pick out a fucking China pattern together. They do not cohabit a nest, cave or din and decide to live out their lives together.

The whole difference between humans and animals is the ability to override impulse. Gay/homosexual marriage and long term cohabitation is not natural in the animal kingdom, much less in the human kingdom. [/quote]

Of course it’s natural. It’s been going on amongst humans since the beginning of recorded history. Just because it isn’t the norm doesn’t make it unnatural. There are all sorts of things that people do and have been doing for centuries that isn’t common but that is natural. I suppose it really just comes down to what one’s definition of natural is. Birth defects are natural, psychological disorders are natural. In no way am I equating these two examples with homosexuality, by the way. I don’t think it’s a disorder or a birth defect.

The idea that it needs to be natural to be okay smacks of Jim Crow-era ignorance. It’s the exact same argument used to justify banning interracial marriage and the separation of races in general. It’s simply a convenient escape hatch for those who don’t know where else to go.[/quote]

No.
Sticking your fingers in your ears and speaking louder to drown me out does not negate my points.

The things you point out are not natural, or to be more to the point, normal. They are aberrations. They go against the “natural” order of things. Just because a thing exists does not mean that it should be embraced or encouraged. If birth defects are natural, then why do we not simply accept them or even promote them instead of diligently working to eliminate them?

“Pedophilia has been going on amongst humans since the beginning of recorded history. Just because it isn’t the norm doesn’t make it unnatural.”

Sounds silly (if not sickening) doesn’t it? But by your logic it should simply be accepted and perhaps even be given protective status.

22

A man gets plumb lonely sometimes and I’m not going to judge another man for how he breaks in the fillies but this is NOT marriage!

23

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

Can’t find Johnson vs Texas - This is what I can find on homosexual “suspect class” status:

“In Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in its Findings of Fact commented that sexual orientation could be considered a suspect class but, on the facts presented Proposition 8 failed even to satisfy the much more deferential rational basis review. The U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska held the same in Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning, but was reversed on appeal by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.”

So it’s been ruled upon at the US Court of Appeals but has not been to the Supreme Court as far as I can tell. The 8th Circuit Court of Appeal decision should go to the Supreme Court because the original decision was correct.

and:

Section I A. Persuasive Authority Unequivocally Supports the Conclusion That Homosexuals Are Not a Suspect Class.

http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/OpptoMotforSummJ.pdf

Nor a “quasi suspect class.”

[/quote]

Thanks, I was scratching my head over this. I kept getting a case about flag burning upon searching for Johnson v. Texas. Nor could I find anything about the Supreme Court having determined that gays were a suspect class…What’s up with this?
[/quote]

Dunno. Maybe DB can explain. I’m not going to spend any time researching it. As far as I’m concerned it’s not relevant because even if homosexuals are recognised as a “suspect class” they still can’t “get married” - because that’s not what marriage is. They can be afforded all the same rights as a married couple but that can’t “marry.”

24

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

A man gets plumb lonely sometimes and I’m not going to judge another man for how he breaks in the fillies but this is NOT marriage![/quote]

why not ?
mariage = “two consenting adults”, not “two consenting homo sapiens adults”, you specist bigot.

26

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Delbert, what if Adam and Steve and Evelyn and Evelyn’s sister and Adam’s brother and Steve’s mailman and Adam’s cousin and Steve’s uncle and Evelyn’s hairdresser and Adam’s congressman and Steve’s T-Nation buddy and Evelyn’s daughter and Steve’s pen pal from Burma want to get married? All to each other.[/quote]

What if? Is marriage a fundamental right in this hypothetical or is it not? That’s what this whole things boils down to. The reality is that this particular scenario cannot be further investigated until we assume one way or the other whether marriage is a fundamental right or not.

I personally wouldn’t have a problem with it from a purely Constitutional standpoint. From a moral, ethical standpoint I would have a problem with it. But determining morality in cases like this is not within the purview of the Court and never has been.

The same argument you’re making could be made regarding free speech. Let’s say we’re arguing the extent of free speech in front of the Court. I might argue that the right should be expanded, as it has been in many, many cases. In Brandenburg v. Ohio the right to hold a non-violent, public KKK rally was brought into question. The Court acknowledged that they felt the speech in question was repugnant, but it was still allowable.

That is the great paradox within a republican democracy, or any democracy for that matter; freedom includes the freedom to be an asshole, to be a jerk, to be a degenerate and so forth as long those actions do not violate the Constitutional rights of others. I don’t like the idea of several people marrying several others all at once any more than you do, but no right of mine or yours is being violated by them doing so. After all, we don’t have the right to live our lives free of offense of our sense of morality.

So your scenario, while it is an extreme case, still should be protected under the Constitution. The same with the right to call someone a nigger or other such deplorable statements. That being said, there is probably some area of contract law that I’m not familiar with at all that might come into play.

27

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

Can’t find Johnson vs Texas - This is what I can find on homosexual “suspect class” status:

“In Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in its Findings of Fact commented that sexual orientation could be considered a suspect class but, on the facts presented Proposition 8 failed even to satisfy the much more deferential rational basis review. The U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska held the same in Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning, but was reversed on appeal by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.”

So it’s been ruled upon at the US Court of Appeals but has not been to the Supreme Court as far as I can tell. The 8th Circuit Court of Appeal decision should go to the Supreme Court because the original decision was correct.

and:

Section I A. Persuasive Authority Unequivocally Supports the Conclusion That Homosexuals Are Not a Suspect Class.

http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/OpptoMotforSummJ.pdf

Nor a “quasi suspect class.”

[/quote]

Thanks, I was scratching my head over this. I kept getting a case about flag burning upon searching for Johnson v. Texas. Nor could I find anything about the Supreme Court having determined that gays were a suspect class…What’s up with this?
[/quote]

Sorry. I got the cases confused. I can’t remember the name of it off the top of my head now, but it was the case that determined sodomy between two men was Constitutional.

Here is what the Court uses to determine a suspect class, although suspect classes are not limited to this criteria:

The group has historically been discriminated against, and/or have been subject to prejudice, hostility, and/or stigma, perhaps due, at least in part, to stereotypes.
They possess an immutable and/or highly visible trait.
They are powerless to protect themselves via the political process. (The group is a “discrete” and “insular” minority.
The group’s distinguishing characteristic does not inhibit it from contributing meaningfully to society.

Based upon this criteria, I have a hard time seeing how anyone could argue that gays aren’t a suspect class. If gays are a suspect class, then strict scrutiny would be applied.

28

[quote]JEATON wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]JEATON wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

“but it’s not NATURAL”. Actually, it is. Take a look at MANY other species in the animal kingdom and you will see plenty of examples of homosexuality/bisexuality/etc…

[/quote]

Your other points aside, this particular claim always annoys the shit out of me. It is total and complete bullshit.

Yes, you can find examples of animals who mimic sexual acts or even attempt sexual acts with same sex members of their own specials or even other species. Pheromones, etc. trigger short term momentary impulses that lead to the acting out of sexual behavior. For a moment! The animals do not them go out and pick out a fucking China pattern together. They do not cohabit a nest, cave or din and decide to live out their lives together.

The whole difference between humans and animals is the ability to override impulse. Gay/homosexual marriage and long term cohabitation is not natural in the animal kingdom, much less in the human kingdom. [/quote]

Of course it’s natural. It’s been going on amongst humans since the beginning of recorded history. Just because it isn’t the norm doesn’t make it unnatural. There are all sorts of things that people do and have been doing for centuries that isn’t common but that is natural. I suppose it really just comes down to what one’s definition of natural is. Birth defects are natural, psychological disorders are natural. In no way am I equating these two examples with homosexuality, by the way. I don’t think it’s a disorder or a birth defect.

The idea that it needs to be natural to be okay smacks of Jim Crow-era ignorance. It’s the exact same argument used to justify banning interracial marriage and the separation of races in general. It’s simply a convenient escape hatch for those who don’t know where else to go.[/quote]

No.
Sticking your fingers in your ears and speaking louder to drown me out does not negate my points.

The things you point out are not natural, or to be more to the point, normal. They are aberrations. They go against the “natural” order of things. Just because a thing exists does not mean that it should be embraced or encouraged. If birth defects are natural, then why do we not simply accept them or even promote them instead of diligently working to eliminate them?

“Pedophilia has been going on amongst humans since the beginning of recorded history. Just because it isn’t the norm doesn’t make it unnatural.”

Sounds silly (if not sickening) doesn’t it? But by your logic it should simply be accepted and perhaps even be given protective status. [/quote]

No, they aren’t the same at all. Pedophilia involves criminal action. The criminality of it has been determined based on the obvious detrimental effect it has on society. I don’t see any obvious detriment to society with allowing gays to marry. None of the arguments hold any water. I suppose if one thinks that there is something inherently wrong with being gay, then yes, it would be detrimental. So what’s wrong with being gay? Not my cup of tea, but what obvious detriment to society does it really represent, aside from a moral one largely based in religious beliefs? The Court is not in the business of correcting social ills, only protecting the rights of the individual balanced against the rights of the state. States and the federal government do not have the right to discriminate toward a suspect class.

Now, gays may not be a suspect class and I may have misspoken when I said they were. But in my opinion, this is only because a case of this type hasn’t been brought before the Supreme Court yet. When it is, I don’t doubt at all that it will include gays within this class and state constitutions will have to be rewritten to word marriage as being between two consenting adults. This isn’t legislating from the bench, it’s correcting from the bench in an effort to protect individual rights.

Also, I agree that being a retard is an aberration, but retards are also a suspect class and as such that abnormality cannot lead to the withholding of fundamental rights. I don’t know if it was you or someone else who cited the inherent degradation of society if gays could marry, but this holds no water either. It is the exact same language used to justify banning interracial marriage, to promote segregation of the races and the prior existence of anti-sodomy laws. That line of reasoning didn’t work then and it doesn’t work now.

29

I still stay in contact with my old Constitutional Law professor from Pepperdine. He specializes in civil rights cases, although he’s more of a Model One kind of guy. I’ll run these arguments by him and report back as to what his views are. I’m sure they’ll be much more well-informed than any of ours. This should clear up any confusion as to precedent and the application of the Constitution.

30

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

Can’t find Johnson vs Texas - This is what I can find on homosexual “suspect class” status:

“In Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in its Findings of Fact commented that sexual orientation could be considered a suspect class but, on the facts presented Proposition 8 failed even to satisfy the much more deferential rational basis review. The U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska held the same in Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning, but was reversed on appeal by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.”

So it’s been ruled upon at the US Court of Appeals but has not been to the Supreme Court as far as I can tell. The 8th Circuit Court of Appeal decision should go to the Supreme Court because the original decision was correct.

and:

Section I A. Persuasive Authority Unequivocally Supports the Conclusion That Homosexuals Are Not a Suspect Class.

http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/OpptoMotforSummJ.pdf

Nor a “quasi suspect class.”

[/quote]

Thanks, I was scratching my head over this. I kept getting a case about flag burning upon searching for Johnson v. Texas. Nor could I find anything about the Supreme Court having determined that gays were a suspect class…What’s up with this?
[/quote]

Dunno. Maybe DB can explain. I’m not going to spend any time researching it. As far as I’m concerned it’s not relevant because even if homosexuals are recognised as a “suspect class” they still can’t “get married” - because that’s not what marriage is. They can be afforded all the same rights as a married couple but that can’t “marry.”[/quote]

Your argument holds no merit. If gays are a suspect class, they can get married to one another. To say that they can have all the same rights as straights except for marriage is akin to saying that blacks can have all the same rights as whites except for access to all-white public schools. If Plessy v. Ferguson were still a binding ruling, you would be 100% correct. But it isn’t a binding ruling anymore and hasn’t been since 1954.

31

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:<<< Unless you have at least a basic working knowledge of the history of civil rights Supreme Court case precedent in this country, you are WAY out of your league here, pal. >>>[/quote]Court precedent is a perversion of OUR constitutional republican form of government. In your “progressive” fluctuating kingdom of relativity, once a sitting court mangles the constitution, that deformity stands to future generations as what is itself “constitutional”. Anyone who really believes that the intent of our founders was to approve same sex “marriage”, the butchery of unborn children or a horrific socially and economically deleterious welfare state, is not only woefully deluded, but also deserves what’s coming. Shoot, what’s practically here.

Determining original intent is the stated function of the courts. Not playing pied piper by incrementally rewriting our history. Whatever league you’re in. Ir isn’t the American league.
[/quote]

Original intent is one view of the interpretation of the Constitution (known as the Model One approach). The living document view is the other (Model Two approach). The only thing we really know about the original intent of the Founding Fathers is that the Constitution is the final arbiter in these matters, as interpreted by the judicial branch. Beyond that, it’s a guessing game. What your argument boils down to is ridiculous.
[/quote]

That is something we actually dont know.

Jefferson as well as Madison (I think) did not intend for the SCOTUS to have the final say on constitutional matters.

That is so because the SCOTUS claims it is so, which is kind of circular.

32

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Delbert, what if 49 year old Steve wants to marry his 18 year old daughter?

What about 65 year old Evelyn marrying her 18 year old grandson?

What about 38 year old Steve marrying his identical twin 18 year old daughters? Or his 18 year old daughter marrying her 18 year old fraternal twin brother?

Or if you want to marry your dad?

Olee marry her mom?[/quote]

Excellent argument for the state to get out of marriage altogether.

It has no leg to stand on without discriminating arbitrarily .

33

[quote]orion wrote:

Jefferson as well as Madison (I think) did not intend for the SCOTUS to have the final say on constitutional matters.

[/quote]

Platinum bars + rhetorical request for source

34

Okay, you mean the “nullifiers?” Madison was not a “nullifier” and Jefferson was dead at the time. This is relevant:

'Calhoun’s “Exposition and Protest” did start a national debate over the doctrine of nullification. The leading proponents of the nationalistic view included Daniel Webster, Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, Judge William Alexander Duer, John Quincy Adams, Nathaniel Chipman, and Nathan Dane. These people rejected the compact theory advanced by Calhoun, claiming that the Constitution was the product of the people, not the states.

According to the nationalist position, the Supreme Court had the final say on the constitutionality of legislation, the national union was perpetual and had supreme authority over individual states. The nullifiers, on the other hand, asserted that the central government was not to be the ultimate arbiter of its own power, and that the states, as the contracting entities, could judge for themselves what was or was not constitutional. While Calhoun’s “Exposition” claimed that nullification was based on the reasoning behind the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, an aging James Madison in an August 28, 1830 letter to Edward Everett, intended for publication, disagreed. Madison wrote, denying that any individual state could alter the compact:

"Can more be necessary to demonstrate the inadmissibility of such a doctrine than that it puts it in the power of the smallest fraction over 1/4 of the U. S. - that is, of 7 States out of 24 ? to give the law and even the Constn. to 17 States, each of the 17 having as parties to the Constn. an equal right with each of the 7 to expound it & to insist on the exposition. That the 7 might, in particular instances be right and the 17 wrong, is more than possible. But to establish a positive & permanent rule giving such a power to such a minority over such a majority, would overturn the first principle of free Govt. and in practice necessarily overturn the Govt. itself. ’

and

Disbarred lawyer and convicted Watergate figure Charles Colson (see June 1974), now the head of the Christian Prison Fellowship ministry, writes that “the Constitution does not give the Supreme Court final say on constitutional questions.” Colson, a traditional social conservative, makes this startling claim in an op-ed about the recent Boerne v. Flores decision of the Court, in which the Court struck down the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) as an unconstitutional encroachment on the fundamental concept of the separation of church and state.

Colson writes that the decision has “precipitat[ed] what may be the greatest constitutional crisis of our age.” Colson, a supporter of the RFRA, says the striking down of the act makes “religious liberties…once again vulnerable.” The overarching question Colson raises is whether the Supreme Court is the final judicial arbiter of the Constitution. Colson gives a blunt answer: “Contrary to what most Americans think, the Constitution does not give the Supreme Court final say on constitutional questions. And the Founders resisted the idea.”

Colson cites the landmark 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison, in which the Court, he says, took up the power of judicial review, then gives three examples of presidents defying Court orders. However, fellow convicted Watergate figure John Dean, a former White House counsel, refutes Colson’s arguments. In 2006, Dean will write that “Colson…is seeking, in effect, to nullify Supreme Court decisions of which he does not approve.”

Dean will note that although Colson has long since lost his license to practice law, he is considered a scholar of some importance by his conservative contemporaries, and therefore has some influence.
‘Marbury’ and Judicial Review - Dean notes that Colson’s interpretation of the bedrock Marbury case is wrong. Judicial review by federal courts of Congressional legislation was a long-established principle by the time the Court issued its ruling.

Even before the Constitutional Conventions, state courts had routinely overturned state legislative acts. The assumption of most during the debates over the contents of the Constitution was that federal courts, and most specifically the Supreme Court, would have similar power over federal legislation.

35

[quote]DBCooper wrote:<<< What this all boils down to is what is and is not an integral, fundamental part of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. >>>[/quote]Yes, and also what standard should be called upon to make that determination. If you refuse to recognize that the New Testament Christian ethic of marriage, family and sex was viewed as absolutely necessary for the functioning and survival of their fledgling government and nation then you’re wastin everybody’s time tryin to sound informed.

They didn’t need to explicitly state that. EVERYBODY knew. Until the 1960’s.

37

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

Your argument holds no merit. If gays are a suspect class, they can get married to one another.

[/quote]

No. How can a man marry a man? That is not what marriage is.

But they DO have the same rights in relation to marriage as straight people. They can marry ANY woman of age that consents. So your argument doesn’t hold any water. Both straight men and gay men are being treated EXACTLY the same and have all the same rights…actually, gays have considerably more rights with all the anti-discrimination legislation; appropriately Orwellian name.

Your analogy is flawed too. A better analogy would be someone who demands to have their child David recognised as their daughter. After all what is gender? And what is a ‘mother?’ I demand maternity leave to look after my daughter David. After all, I’m the MOTHER you see.

38

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

Jefferson as well as Madison (I think) did not intend for the SCOTUS to have the final say on constitutional matters.

That is so because the SCOTUS claims it is so, which is kind of circular.[/quote]

I do believe you got one right, Joe. Despite the all pervading idea that our three branches are “equal” Congress holds the trump card in most every area of constitutional matters.[/quote]

But what does that actually mean? Although the powers of the Supreme Court are only vaguely defined in Article III the Supreme Court is the highest court in the land. And the role of the judicial branch is to be interpreter and arbiter of the constitution. And neither Congress nor the President have the authority to interpret the constitution.

‘The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges as a fundamental law. It must therefore belong to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body’ - Hamilton

40

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

Your argument holds no merit. If gays are a suspect class, they can get married to one another.

[/quote]

No. How can a man marry a man? That is not what marriage is.

But they DO have the same rights in relation to marriage as straight people. They can marry ANY woman of age that consents. So your argument doesn’t hold any water. Both straight men and gay men are being treated EXACTLY the same and have all the same rights…actually, gays have considerably more rights with all the anti-discrimination legislation; appropriately Orwellian name.

Your analogy is flawed too. A better analogy would be someone who demands to have their child David recognised as their daughter. After all what is gender? And what is a ‘mother?’ I demand maternity leave to look after my daughter David. After all, I’m the MOTHER you see.[/quote]

Look, if marriage is a fundamental right, then the definition of it as far as the govt goes has to be changed to being between two consenting adults. I don’t know how much clearer I can make this. To say, well, you can marry anyone you want except for the person you love is ridiculous and entirely discriminatory if other people CAN turn around and marry the one they love.

After all, what is marriage? It’s a union between two consenting adults who love each other. If it is also a fundamental right yet can only be between a man and a woman, gays are effectively banned from enjoying the same right that you or I can enjoy. If it isn’t a fundamental right then this whole argument is moot.

The Court, when deciding whether marriage is a fundamental right or not, will look at traditions and history to determine whether marriage is an integral part of western society. They’ll use English common law, previous case precedent in this country and so forth. I think that they will find that marriage is an integral part of society and has been for a long time. But they aren’t going to sit there and say, gee, nowhere have gays been allowed to marry before so it goes against tradition. Their job in this respect isn’t to determine whether discrimination has longstanding roots in this country and so forth. If the Court did look at things this way then blacks would still be segregated. Their aim will simply be to decide whether the ability to marry the person one loves is so deeply rooted in society that it must be a fundamental right. They aren’t looking to determine whether discrimination is the longstanding tradition but rather if the “right” being denied is a fundamental one.