Sweeping Federal LGBT Rights Bill Will Be Introduced This Week

What is your point? When supreme court supported slavery, it did no rule special rights for people of Anglo-Saxon descent. Whatever wording judges have chosen is absolutely meaningless, what important is the end result of their decision. The end result is that homosexual relationship has been proclaimed as equal to heterosexual, despite the well-known fact that heterosexual relationship is heavily regulated by the government and by definition is not equal to any other type of relationship. That essentially means that homosexual couples selectively acquired special benefits reserved for heterosexual couples without any kind of justification.

 

Aaaaand no where in the 14th Amendment does the 14th amendment even mention discrimination on the basis of gender, let alone "clearly" prohibit it. Gender discrimination was writtten into the 14th amendment.

"But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States,......."

Voting was denied to ALL women at the time.

 

Yeah, government sanction is the issue here. There would be no equality issue if the government was colorblind on this issue. ie: the 'legal union' doctrine needs to be abolished: couples need to pay the same tax rates as individuals, marital status should have no additional standing in wills.

The easiest way to transition to such a world is by cutting everyone's taxes such that individuals get a large tax cut, and couples get a net modest tax cut (ie: slightly larger than what they lost through the transition to individual tax structures). Everyone would get lower taxes; polygamy, polygyny, homosexual, heterosexual, interspecies, and inanimate object marriage would all be on the equal footing that naturally forms in a society free from unwarranted interference. Some, like child and interspecies marriage would be disproved of by the aggregate of individuals in society, others like heterosexual and homosexual would be common and innocuous. But whatever the view of society, it will grow organically out of the individual rather than some bureaucrat in the capital.

It seems to me that this needs to be our goal on class issues from sexual orientation, to racism, to sexism. It's not Marxist, it's not socially conservative - it's Switzerland.

 

Well, their only justification was to win more respect and dignity for homosexuals. But dicrimination in the law, purely for the benefit of those who are not discriminated against is unconstitutional discrimination. All discrimination at a minimum must be rationally related to serving SOME legitimate governmental interest.

 

I'm not religious.
Chicks pee in a stall with a locking door in the US. Women changing in gym locker rooms don't get naked much, bra and pants cover ad much as any bikini does. If she's going to take everything off, she usually goes into a shower stall.
Doesn't matter much to me .
Abortion in the US is legal. The morning after pill us also available over the counter.

 

Bingo, you hit the nail on the head. Kind of. Unintentionally.

At least you can now admit that marriage equality does mean that gay people are treated equally with regards to marriage to straight people.

The only reason you are against it is that you don't think they should be treated equally, what's usually referred to as "Bigotry", and somehow you try to wrestle that into meaning they get special rights because they aren't discriminated against.

Bigotry is the word.

 

Yes, it protects free exercise of religion, it doesn't protect religious people who use that right to deny others free exercise of THEIR rights. So when a county clerk refuses to accept same-sex marriage applications, she's not exercising her right to free religious expression, she's infringing the rights of the folks coming to submit those applications. Same-sex marriage is the law, it's legal, and the people submitting those applications aren't doing anything wrong and do not deserve being declined because of the personal religious beliefs of a government employee. If your job will come in conflict with your free exercise of religion, get a new job. You're not forced to have that job. You're not being forced to be in a situation that you interpret as being against your religion. Their religion's don't command them to be clerks. So it's time for those folks to grow up and move on to jobs that won't conflict with their religion.

I think if you're going to use religion to opt out of things, you'd better be following that religion to the letter. Know any folks who do that in real life? Know any folks who don't use the bible like a JcPenny catalog, skimming through picking and choosing what they like and what they don't? Notice how secular law takes precedence over religious commands at times? Would you defend the right of a religious person to stone another religious person to death because that's what the bible commands? Nope, you wouldn't. Because you've decided the rights of the person being stoned overrule the right of the person who would want to do the stoning because that's what their religion demands. You're perfectly fine with making exceptions to the free expression of religion in some cases so this isn't a question of wanting to be absolute or slippery slopes or any of it.

It's simply a question of people being butthurt that same-sex marriage is legal and trying to make pests of themselves. They should be fired immediately.

- - - Updated - - -

And the bans on same-sex marriage could not even meet that minimum requirement which is why they're gone.

 

I suspect he doesn't think they should be treated equally because they are not equal. ONLY heterosexual couples produce children. Biology is the word.

 

Actually, it was revealing that the supreme court didn't even subject the facts to such analysis. It was decided on the basis of substantive due process. They didn't even try to use equal protection analysis.

 

MOD EDIT - Rule 3

Equal protection clause

 

Actually the courts justification was that banning them violates the 14th Amendment.
MOD EDIT - Rule 3

and banning same sex couples serves no interest. That's why you lost.

 

And if the ability to procreate was a requirement of marriage you'd have a point. MOD EDIT - Rule 3

 

YMOD EDIT - Rule 3 Solomon was blessed by God early in his reign, but all those women turned his heart away from God, which created internal family strife which led to a civil war. Abraham's indiscretion with Hagar (who was never his wife, BTW) spawned a race which has been at enmity with Israel from its inception to this day. And the rest of the patriarchs were beloved by God in spite of their dalliances, not because of them.

So to claim the Bible is a testament to a God Who smiles on polygamy is pretty stupid.

 

There were no facts to examine because there is no case to be made that the government actually needed to restrict marriage to certain gender combinations. Did you really expect the Justices to sit there and listen to arguments about denying rights to people based solely on the "it makes me feel good" arguments that you folks use? Four of them were content with accepting that horse(*)(*)(*)(*) but luckily, the other five were not.

 

The Supreme court isnt supposed to determine what is "needed". Thats the job of the legislators. They are supposed to decide what is Constitutional. Thats why they abandoned the basic formulas used in US Constituional discrimination law and instead opted to use a substantive due process argument. AS IF not receiving a marriage license restricts ones "liberty" in any way. That "liberty" requires they be given "respect and dignity"

 

Haha...
Noah's daughters got him drunk and sexed him up hoping for offspring. Lot offered up his daughters to a horny mob desiring to sodomize his male guests. Jacob lied to his blind father to steal his brother's birthrite. God seems to pick deviants.
The OT never mentions heaven or hell. Jews don't believe in an afterlife. The Hebrew is shat upon during translation. I favored the NASB during my years as a very convinced Methodist. Grew up Southern Baptist.
Paul was probably the most successful proselytizer ever.
Studying the Apocrypha initiated my apostasy.
Do you regard most of the Pentateuch as factual and historical?

 

That was their conclusion, not hei justification.

 

MOD EDIT - Rule 3

Nope. Their justification for overturning the bans was they violated the 14th amendment.

 

Unless they've revamped the place, avoid Trapeze in NYC at all costs. Skeevy to the max.

 

the free will you were given allows you to choose to not be religious etc etc

who cares and what does that have to do with anything?

I replied to a comment that marriage between people who engage in gay sex is now the law of the land; I stated that killing babies is also legal but does that make it right.

With respect to allowing people to be treated as whatever sex they say they are at any given moment then allows for men to waltz into dressing rooms, showers etc of the opposite sex.

That is where these "sweeping changes" take us

 

I would respond in kind, but I would be summarily banned from the forum while you are politely edited.

 

Good!.

 

Insults don't undo the 14th amendment. So saying something thatwould get you bannedwouldn't refute the facts.

So have a drink take a breath and let go of your hostility allit does is shorten your life.