Why do gays make their sexuality an issue?

This is not what the act says, and this is not its effect. Apparently you are not familiar with the Perez case in California nor the Loving case in Virginia, which both actually dealt directly with marriage; the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not. The Loving case ended miscegenation laws nationwide.

In short, bans on interracial marriages have already been well established as unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment.

Here's your 'fatal' error: The Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not establish what is or is not a civil right. Rather, it prohibits the withholding of civil rights in certain areas of law based on undue discrimination. Civil rights are not even remotely limited to the things covered in this act, which is actually one of several designated as "civil rights" acts. It is the sixth of eight; the first as far back as 1866, and the most recent in 1991.

Well, they would be affected if prevented from marrying due to their lack of a party affiliation. I find it funny that you notice this with regard to party preference, but completely missed it on the question of interracial marriage. Who can a person of mixed races marry if marriage is restricted to marrying within your own, singular race?

Apparently you're completely uninformed about standards of judicial review as well. Rational basis review is the lowest standard of scrutiny the courts use in applying the law. That is to say, it's the minimum requirement a law must meet if it's to withstand a challenge to its constitutionality. It doesn't prevent Congress from passing laws that are stupid, but it does require the laws to at least be rationally related to forwarding legitimate government interests, lest rights be violated.

Get rid of the rational basis standard of review, and you lose any check on the power of Congress to do all sorts of really horribly unconstitutional things. Even so, the courts show considerable deference to Congress. Obtaining heightened or strict scrutiny of a law from the court is a very high bar to meet.

Actually, a growing number of district and circuit courts have found Section 3 of DOMA to be lacking any rational relation to forwarding a legitimate government interest. Given the number of challenges targeting Section 3 that are making their way up the judicial chain, it will be surprising if the Supreme Court doesn't grant cert to at least one of them.

Just to be clear, the fact that laws lacking a rational basis continue to exist doesn't mean they can't eventually be challenged and found unconstitutional.

To which I can only say that the task of trying to convince someone who doesn't actually understand what civil rights are is not something I'm sure I care to pursue further. It's not my job to educate you, but I'll be all too happy to point out where I think you're wrong. And I think you're very wrong in your understanding of how the law works.

A group not protected by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, nor any subsequent act.

More accurately, the Court struck down Romer because the law created a class (homosexuals) for a suspect purpose (estranging them from the protection of the laws). The precedents set by Romer were a major player in the 9th Circuit's ruling against California's Prop 8, passed in November 2008. The point being, both Colorado's Amendment 2 and California's Prop 8 create classifications in the law for a suspect purpose. In Amendment 2, the class was explicitly 'homosexuals'. In Prop 8, one of the classes created by the law's wording was persons with a same-sex orientation in their choice of a marriage partner - a group which would clearly be comprised mainly of homosexuals, and the group indeed targeted by much of the campaign for its passage.

The Prop 8 case has been appealed to the Supreme Court by the proponents, but we don't know if it will be granted cert. It's a unique case in that unlike other state-enacted bans, it actually took away the ability of same-sex couples to enjoy legally recognized marriages after they had been allowed by the California Supreme Court (which cited precedents set in the Perez case I mentioned earlier).

 

I'll translate.


Shut up and don't talk about anything that offends me! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

 

False framing. Removing the gender restriction does not give preference to homosexual couples. It removes the ban on same-sex couples which gave preference to opposite-sex couples. It is the ban on same-sex couples which requires a legitimate government interest, and there is none.

 

Except birds don't all pair up male and female, either; some pairs are the same sex.

 

Yes.
But the overshoes are of course, rainbow colored.
(and how did you know? Who spilled the beans? I did not confirm this for you!)

Random thought back atcha.
When a couple gets married in a religious ceremony, don't they also have to file a certificate of marriage with the county courthouse?

If this is true, then I believe it's a mixture of civil and religion practices.

One of the big ol', huge honking lies told about this issue, is that if SSM were ever legally permitted in all 50 states, the churches would have to be available to marry gays.

That's just simply not true.
Church I used to belong too had the ability/right to refuse marriage ceremonies to straight couples, for really---any reason they (church) deemed.

Oh.
@ crawdadr (sp?)

As has been noted, with the exception of spousal privilege, I've been told by a lawyer, that yes....my Sweetie and I could go through the (civil) court system and put in place (almost) all the paperwork necessary that give each of us the rights w/regard to each other that a married couple has.

The problem is, there are many court cases where even legal documents (such as a living will or medical power of attorney) have been challenged by the 'legal' next of kin.

IOW, while I have a living will and MPA in place, naming my partner as the one I wish to make decisions on my behalf; if something ever happened to me, my parents (who since I'm not married) are my legal next-of-kin, could challenge the documents, my wishes and the "rights" those documents give my partner.

It's loads better than it use to be, but in multiple states, the courts will still side with the "legal" next-of-kin.

 

That is exactly the case.

 

No, that would be you predictably crafting your next strawman to knock down, To quote the relevant post again

 

Yeah, I saw a story once about two male penguins in a zoo building a nest to incubate a rock together. I think the wellbeing of offspring gives rise to the legitimate governmental interest that justifies the discrimination.. The wellbeing of the rock does not. As well I did specify the birds around here, central texas.

 

Actually, this was the strawman:

OneThunder did not say the government should give preference to homosexuals, but merely asked why they can't be married by a judge or Justice of the Peace. Nothing there suggesting that homosexuals should get preference over some other group. It's merely a query about that group's status.

I stand by my complaint about your framing of the issue.

 

I do not. I reject both the explicit and implicit arguments here. And I'm not taking your bait, because we all know what comes next: repetition of the same cut & paste arguments we've seen from you ad nauseum. It's not worth my time. Now get your little 'victory' dance over with so we can move on.

It's not just penguins, and I'm seriously not going to run through all the species of central texas for you, because the location is completely irrelevant to your base argument, which implies that how animals pair up is somehow relevant to the human construct of marriage. It's not, and I'm done with indulging this stupidity.

 

Yes your right I am not a lawyer, hell I don't even have a college degree. I am just a regular working guy that is interested in the issues of the day. So I am not versed in all the history of the civil rights decisions over the last hundred years and I apparently don't know judicial review from a movie review.

But it is the people like me that the homosexual community has to convince. Nothing is going to change until we join with you and tell our elected officials that we want a change. Your arguments (though caustic and combative at times) are sound, and by providing the different court decisions you have helped me achieve a fuller understanding of the civil rights issues. I am almost convinced of your position (yah how many people say that on these boards).

So lets say I agree with everything you have said so far up above. I have only two questions and after that I will not bother you with my simplemindedness.

1. How is having homosexual feelings and inclinations make one a minority deserving of protections or accommodations (by accommodations I mean changing laws to allow them to do things). Because there are people out there that have different feelings and inclinations that are not protected or given special accommodations such as those that wish to marry multiple people or have cultural peculiarities like African tribal rights that may disfigure (or what we feel is disfigurement) their young women or men upon attaining their version adulthood. [[please I am in no way saying that homosexuality is associated with intentional disfigurement rights I am just giving an example of something that is illegal here but allowed in other places. I could have used their practice of marrying young teens but that is used to often as an attack on these boards so I wished to avoid it.]]

2. Why should Americans care about this issue? With African Americans there was a clear abuse that did not just inconvenience them but actually led to a subjugation of their whole race by the majority. The laws disenfranchised them from political influence, education of their young, and a chance at bettering them selves economically. These things were more then injustices they actually harmed the very fabric of our country which is why they had to change. Same gender marriage does not seem as important as all that so why should we care enough to make these changes a priority?

Thank you for your time I appreciate all of you helping me understand this issue better and if I have offended or annoyed I do apologize.

 

How is legal marriage between a same sex couple PREFERENTIAL? (especially if the law is applied as equal to a NOT same sex couple?????

 

Not all the time. There are numerous marriages not affiliated with ANY religion. Mine for one. LEGALLY only the CIVIL portion should be considered. THAT is the ONLY common denominator. Under the law marriage affords certain protections and privileges. They should be afforded to ALL legally married people. And the law should not pick and choose WHICH people (of legal age) are allowed to marry. Your 'church' factor is only a wedding. Under the law, it is a marriage.

 

Ahh.
Marriage certificates are required before any marriage ceremony is performed, yes? (those of a civil nature)
And it's my understanding that said certificate is issued by one's local county courthouse.

That being the case, I'm with you in being baffled as to how preventing one from marrying whomever they choose (legal age, etc..) is considered equal protection under the law.

If the marriage is officiated solely through the civil system, then any religious belief should not come into play.

 

Exactly. Legal marriage is the only required entity. The religious ceremony is just a choice 'add-on'.

 

That's because you labor under the illusion that it's any more possible for a man to marry a man than it is for a mouse to give birth to a 747.

 

You do realize that men do in fact marry men right?

 

You said "preference to homosexual couples". My brother and I arent a homosexual couple. Single mother and grandmother down the street, raising their children and grand children for nearly 10 years arent a homosexual couple. Preferential when you want to limit this expansion of marriage to "homosexual couples". Equality would entail marriage made available to any two consenting adults who desire it.

 

These relationships are not the same as two individuals seeking marriage.

Your unwillingness to admit this fact does not change its truth.

 

You labor under the illusion that same sex couples aren't getting married already. You choosing to be ignorant of/ignore that fact, changes nothing.

 

Just as homosexual relationships are not the same as two individuals of the opposite sex seeking msarriage. Not sure of your point.

 

except of course homosexual relationships are similarly situated to most heterosexual relationships, and IDENTICALLY situated to heterosexual relationships where the couple is incapable of procreating.

 

Men been marrying men in MA for quite a few years now.
It's also happening in NY and a few other states I'm just too lazy to look up at the moment.

Women marry women too.


I have yet to see a mouse give birth to a 747, but feel certain if that ever happened, it'd be all over You Tube.

(always amuses me when an argument isn't even so much apples and oranges as it is, apples and say....cameras.
)

 

Or just choose not to procreate.
(Is there really a codicil to the marriage certificate that says anything like : "This certificate becomes null & void if no children are produced from this union/marriage w/in 3 years"?

 

So to are relationships made up of any two consenting adults who choose to join together to build a life and a home together. Nothing special about those who happen to be homosexual. Other than this tortured interpretation of Constitutional equal protection law that awards homosexuals, bisexuals and transgenders a higher standard of protection.