Why do gays make their sexuality an issue?

Can I show an example of what you claim does not exist? But youve already told us that what you have pointed out is "proof" of what youve pointed out.

Of course I can.

http://old.post-gazette.com/regionstate/19990221father2.asp

Can you show ANY law before 2002 that allowed for same sex marriage? Can you show even on example in all our nations history of one of these same sex marriages that were not prohibited. Of course you cant. So full of it.

 

No. If we look at how the law has been applied over time, it becomes clear that equal protection is not merely procedural, but substantive. It's also not absolute, since the nature of law often divides people into classes in order to achieve some purpose. When the class is created to achieve a suspect purpose - one aimed at disadvantaging a class of people in contrast to its seemingly "equal" composition, we cannot honestly say that the law passes muster.

If you think the things I listed would qualify as "equal protection", then I assume you agree that the law can be used to prevent interracial marriage, interfaith marriage, etc. You see, I notice that rather than address any of those examples, you chose to simply offer up a naked rhetorical interrogative to reinforce the notion that the wording of the law alone is sufficient to ensure equal protection. Clearly that is not the case; clever wording to give the appearance of equality when the intent is to thereby create an unequal burden is not real equal protection of the laws; it instead mocks the concept.

You are essentially begging the question in avoidance of the issues. I must insist that you answer it for us instead. Would the scenarios I provided in my prior post conform to equal protection of the laws, or would they instead unequally disadvantage certain groups? You have to dig deeper that simply assuming the device of language guarantees equal disadvantage. It most definitely does not.

 

Marriage isnt limited to heterosexual couples in order to exclude homosexuals. It is limited to heterosexual couples in order to include all couples who conceivably could procreate.

 

the inclusion of couples who are known to not be able to conceivably procreate destroys that argument.

 

By directly refuting yours.

 

well you failed miserably, so again, I'm not sure how you think this helps your argument.

 

By DIRECTLY refuting yours

Miscovich is "not the father". He has DNA evidence that proves he is not the father. BUT, since he was married to the childs mother when she gave birth, he is presumed by the law to be the father. Once the child reached 2 years of age, that presumption became irrefutable. Nothing he can do but continue to pay child support. He has been fighting the decision for 7 1/2 years and still paying child support.

 

Well, then you have not even comprehended my argument because the above doesnt even contradict it.

 

Ok your examples:
1. Races cannot marry, if no race is singled out it is not a civil rights abuse per the civil rights act of 64 since no group is targeted and if applied equally would not be agianst the 14th amendment.

2. Same race cant marry the same

3 and 4 would also not fall under those laws but would fall under the 1st amendment becuase they would br prohibating the practice of their religions if they alowed marraige into differant religions or the same religion respectively.

5 and 6 This could be contrued as a 14th amendment issue becuase the federal government creates the brackets and thus can make it unequal. But it would not fall under the civil rights act becuase it does not involve race, color, religion, or national origin

I will not go into the other list you made unless you insist but I would say that the republican demacrat one would not work under the 14th amendment becuase not everyone has a politicol affiliation and thus some would not be effected.

Finally laws should be rational but there is nothing that says they have to be. In fact I believe DOMA is not rational but is has been found to be legal. So as I said I am not convinced of the issue being a civil rights issue. But I do say it is a justice issue and that they way homosexuals are treated is unjust.




Civil Rights Act of 1964discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

I wanted to add this one below to point out that the reason the law in colorado was not legal was that is singled out one group. I
Supreme Court's decision in Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 116 S. Ct. 1620, 134 L. Ed. 2d 855 (1996). In that case, a constitutional amendment in the state of Colorado prohibited governmental units from passing any statute, regulation, or ordinance purporting to protect the rights of homosexuals or bisexuals. The U.S. Supreme Court held that the amendment violated the Equal Protection Clause because it explicitly denies a single group protection under the law.

(sorry I am at work and typing in between calls it is very hard and the blocker is hitting my spell check too blah)

 

All laws that discriminate must at a minimum

The governmental interest is more children in stable homes with both their mother and father working together in the home to provide and care for the children they have brought into the world, as opposed to the alternative or one or neither of their parents present. Marriages limitation to heterosexual couples is rationally related to serving that legitimate governmental interest in that only heterosexual couplings produce children in need of stable homes.

On the other hand, discrimination on the basis of race, in the context of marriages legitimate governmental interest in the wellbeing of children, has NO rational relation to that interest. Children produced by interracial couplings benefit from both their parents in the home, just as much as children of same race couples. They can suffer from the detriment of only one or neither of their parents present in the home.

Race discriminatin in marriage is rationally related to purifying the white race. But that isnt a legitimate governmental interest.

 

But he's got to prove it....DNA test

 

It is already well-proven, that same-sex parents can and do provide an optimal environment for nurturing children.

So, why are homosexual couples discriminated against?

Some may not prefer or be against that... but it is a reality.

 

Random thought: If a couple can be married by a judge or JP and have the same legal protection as a couple married in a 'religious ceremony'
Then why can't homosexuals be married by a judge or a JP?
If it's because the 'religious' groups are crying 'FOUL'
Then isn't the legal system favoring or bowing to the dictates of a RELIGION?
And isn't that illegal? You know, Freedom from religion?

 

Great idea. But we STILL have certain intransigent Americans, going around suggesting that this nation SHOULD be some 'theocracy' or something similar. They'd cry "FOUL" no matter what. That is why I'm certain the courts will have to ensure that homosexual people have the rights they SHOULD.

I respect people's right to hold religious beliefs... but way too many 'believers' (evangelical Christians especially) want GOVERNMENT to officially reflect their religious values. If we allowed that in actuality, the amount of strife and unrest in this nation would be insurmountable.

 

and taking his case to the supreme court. which will ultimately lead to him not having to pay child support.

So, I'm not sure what you think this does for your argument.

 

not only contradicts it, but completely destroyed it.

 

correct.........

 

Ive never seen any study showing children of same sex parents doing as well as children born to their married biological parents. All the studies intentionally avoid that comparison. Regardless, only the tiniest of percentage of children born to single mothers end up with their mother and her girlfriend. Most end up with single mothers on their own. Encouraging lesbians to marry does nothing to lessen this. Lesbian couples dont get each other pregnant.

 

That's a big part of my point. Marriage doesn't have to be religious. Mine isn't.

 

Because if government wants to give preference to homosexual couples, it must have some legitimate governmental interest that is rationally related to the distinction of "homosexual". Otherwise it is unconstitutional discrimination. I cant think of ANY such interest. Can you

 

First off its the mainstream making this a sexual issue by making everything biased to a man and a woman having sex - marriage, adoption, family law, tax preferences and other rights are keyed to a penis and a vagina plugging away in principle at least. If these things were tied to citizenship and being adults and having the right to form households free of the penis and vagina formula it would not be an issue at all.

As for the discrimination issue religion is a choice and you cannot by law bar a person of one faith marrying a person of another faith in civil law so I would place gays in that bloc if they choose it or not they should have the same rights as a religious person since sexual identity is so core to oneself. Even over that of religion.

 

LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!! And then their is the real world. Isnt it revealing how the real world so frequently is the opposite of the one you have imagined.

 

The separation of sexuality from procreation entails its freedom from heterosexuality and its emergence as an individual attribute, something individuals can develop, enjoy, change or project as part of their changing definition of the self. Sexuality becomes plastic because the self itself has broken the bounds of traditional institutional expectations and it is now free to constitute and reconstitute itself in a series of narratives answering to nothing else but the growing freedom of individuals to develop their potential
http://www.colorado.edu/Sociology/gimenez/work/GIDDENS.TXT

 

The mainstream is a reflection of the biology of procreation. Just like all the birds around here build nests each year, paired off into couples made up of males and females.