How To Explain Gay Rights To An Idiot

[No Limit]

Ever hear of "consent of the governed"? You should look into it because it is considered an integral part of freedom.

And marriage is not a right, it's legislated and varies from one government to the next, i.e. age of consent laws vary by state.

I would also note that the purpose of marriage isn't to be inclusive, just the opposite its intent is wholly exclusionary.

So the states don't have to follow the 14th amendment? If that is what you are saying I wonder if you feel the same about all amendments.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

So the states don't have to follow the 14th amendment? If that is what you are saying I wonder if you feel the same about all amendments.

And what right have so-called "gays" been denied?

Perusing the constitution I see a right to publish my opinions, the right to appeal to deity were I so inclined, the right to petition the government, the right to vote, the right to seek elected office, the right to arm bears.

In fact, every right the constitution compels the government to protect centers on political rights, not social mores; and near as I can tell no state has forbidden homosexuals from voting or whatnot.

And as marriage is not enumerated in Art 1 Sec 8 or subsequent amendment it is relegated back to the states for them to decide as they see fit according to the wishes of their citizens.

Marriage is not a right, it is a legal construct just the same as contract law and traffic controls.

[Freeper]

Last I checked heterosexual men can only marry women, and heterosexual women can only marry men. Hetero men can not marry men and hetero women can not marry women. Equality under the law.

What about bisexuals? Should they be able to marry 1 person of each sex?
Or are they not getting equal protection under the law?

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

What about bisexuals? Should they be able to marry 1 person of each sex?
Or are they not getting equal protection under the law?

Or religion-based polygamy.

[wasp69]

What it does say is that no state can treat individuals any different, that means if a state gives marriage licenses out to straight people it must also do so to gay people.

Okay, great.  Show me actual law and case precedence to back up your words.  Surely you can do that, can't you?

Unless you believe that gay people aren't protected by the constitution. Let me know if you disagree with this.

Or, in the absence of actual proof, you can keep tossing out snark.  But wouldn't that kind of blow the whole high road concept that you were claiming earlier?

If you want to argue marriage isn't a basic human right that's fine, that is your opinion and has little to do with this discussion.

Oh, no, my dear, it does.  It was enough for you to bring it up, it is enough for you to show the proof that it is a "basic human right" citing actual law and case precedence.

[Freeper]

Or religion-based polygamy.

You know what the penalty for bigamy is?

Having 2 wives.  

[No Limit]

For a community that loves the constitution so much it's amazing to me how you guys love to ignore it when it isn't convenient for you.

Equal protection means that if a state has a set of laws (laws dealing with marriage licenses in this case) all people must be treated equally under those laws. Yes, that includes gay people.

So if a state has a law on the books which gives out marriage licenses to 2 consenting adults it has no right to discriminate which adults it will give them out to. If 2 men or 2 women want a marriage license a state has no right to deny that if it gives marrige licenses to one men and one woman.

There are no laws protecting polygamy in states, so trying to compare gay marriage to that is not accurate.

[No Limit]

Okay, great.  Show me actual law and case precedence to back up your words.  Surely you can do that, can't you?

Or, in the absence of actual proof, you can keep tossing out snark.  But wouldn't that kind of blow the whole high road concept that you were claiming earlier?

Oh, no, my dear, it does.  It was enough for you to bring it up, it is enough for you to show the proof that it is a "basic human right" citing actual law and case precedence.

I gave you 2 cases so far where federal judges said gay people deserve equal protection just as straight people do. Both of these cases are heading to the supreme court, I'm sorry if you feel a need to ignore this.

You quoted the equal protection clause yourself and then proceeded to ignore what it said.

Marriage is not a right, it is a legal construct just the same as contract law and traffic controls.

You are absolutely right. And asw a legal construct the constitution (which Im sure you love) says you can't legally treat one group of people differently from another group of people. Which is exactly what most states in this country are doing with their marriage laws.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

For a community that loves the constitution so much it's amazing to me how you guys love to ignore it when it isn't convenient for you.

Equal protection means that if a state has a set of laws (laws dealing with marriage licenses in this case) all people must be treated equally under those laws. Yes, that includes gay people.

Utter, self-serving fiction unsupported by history, intent or plain reading of the 14A.

There are no laws protecting polygamy in states, so trying to compare gay marriage to that is not accurate.

No but there is supposedly an amendment protecting freedom to practice religion as you see fit...except you can't. There are limits.

Ditto speech with its time, place and manner restrictions.

States can forbid felons from owning guns despite the supremacy of the RKBA.

Ditto states forbidding felons from voting despite constitutional supremacy AND the 14A.

To be president you must be at least age 35, a rather arbitrary number, despite the fact you have every other political right...unless you have not reached your state's age of majority.

Now, if specified rights can be limited why not a mere legal construct like marriage which the COTUS is silent about?

[No Limit]

Do states have the right to deny gay people driving licenses? Why not?

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Do states have the right to deny gay people driving licenses? Why not?

Certainly you're not suggesting driving takes legal precedent over voting, owning a gun, protesting or the practice of religion.

Is that really all you have left?

[No Limit]

You didn't answer the question. Do states have a constitutional right to deny gay people driving licenses. I assume your answer is no. Why?

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

You didn't answer the question. Do states have a constitutional right to deny gay people driving licenses. I assume your answer is no. Why?

Don't play indignant shitbag with me, shitbag.

Before you asked your insipid dodge I asked, "Now, if specified rights can be limited why not a mere legal construct like marriage which the COTUS is silent about?"

Which, if you bothered to pay attention to other people's arguments as much as you demand they pay attention to yours, you would notice it probably answers your insipid dodge.

Now why don't you ****ing answer my ****ing question.

[TVDOC]

Do states have the right to deny gay people driving licenses? Why not?

States have the right to deny driving privileges to people for a variety of reasons.  State laws on driving privileges vary greatly from state to state.......you know all of  this, your argument is simply disingenuous.....

Marriage licenses are (like driver's licenses)  granted by the state, therefore the states set the eligibility requirements......if you are gay and live in a state like mine that has a Constitutional Amendment forbidding gay marriage (duly voted upon by the electorate), you are free to move to a state that allows such a travesty.

doc

[Wineslob]

No Limit is making Bunny angry.........not good.

[No Limit]

Still waiting for a simple answer to a very simple question.

Do states have a constitutional right to deny gay people driving licenses. If this question seems too complicated for you guys lets simplify it.

Do states have a cosntitutional right to deny black people driving licenses?

Why not?

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Still waiting for a simple answer to a very simple question.

No, you're dodging the question put to you before you started dodging.

[Wineslob]

Do states have a constitutional right to deny gay people driving licenses.

Do they need to register as Ghay, or be known as Ghay on the license?

[TVDOC]

Still waiting for a simple answer to a very simple question.

Do states have a constitutional right to deny gay people driving licenses. If this question seems too complicated for you guys lets simplify it.

The answer is YES.....should they choose to do so.....as I stipulated above.....and you ignored.....

Equating being black (a race), and gay (a "lifestyle")....is not a valid argument, and will only succeed in pissing off 12% of the (black) population.  Just like it did  in California.

Again disingenuous....asked and answered.

doc

[USA4ME]

Wow, I asked a simple question on page 2 of this thread and it *still* hasn't been answered.

.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Do they need to register as Ghay, or be known as Ghay on the license?

I think if the vehicle is a Prius or Subaru it's implied.

[No Limit]

Ok finally, I got an answer.

According to some constitutional scholars here states have a legal right to deny gay and black people driving privileges if they so choose to.

Thanks for clearing that up. Luckily federal courts disagree with you, and in the next few years we will hear on the marriage issue directly from the supreme court. And whne the supereme court rules that states must give gay people marriage licenses you all will be sitting here bitching about activist judges.

[TVDOC]

Ok finally, I got an answer.

According to some constitutional scholars here states have a legal right to deny gay and black people driving privileges if they so choose to.

Thanks for clearing that up. Luckily federal courts disagree with you, and in the next few years we will hear on the marriage issue directly from the supreme court. And whne the supreme court rules that states must give gay people marriage licenses you all will be sitting here bitching about activist judges.

We have no (openly) ghey people in this state....we're still enforcing our sodomy laws......we're an independent lot, in some areas still fighting the Civil War.....

And I seriously doubt this  SCOTUS is going to overturn DOMA.......remember there is an election next year, and the pendulum swings.......

The gheys rattling their "sabers" about court decisions overturning the collective will of the voters in the various states are the  quickest way that I know of to ensure that there will be a US Constitutional Amendment enshrining marriage as between a man and woman.....a tiny (but noisy) 3% of the population is rapidly succeeding in doing serious damage to their cause.....they just don't know when to STFU......

doc

[USA4ME]

The definition of marriage is a union between one man and one woman.  No law of man can ever change that.  A law might be passed where it's permitted to happen, and it might even be called "marriage," but it's not marriage.

Once again, if homosexual marriage was one of the things the Constitution intended when it speaks of equal protection, it would have been happening in the USA for 200 years now.  It hasn't.

.

[No Limit]

Yes, a "law of men" can and will change it. Not everybody subscribes to your silly beliefs, especially not our legal system.

Your argument that its not constitutional because it hasn't been practiced yet is absolutely absurd. Does that mean slavery was constitutional because it was around for 80+ years before it was banned? Was seperate but equal constitutional because that was around for close to 200 years before it was finally changed?