SCOTUS to take on allowing Gays to marry. What say you?

[BigRedChief]

There are two cases(DOMA and Proposition 8) to be heard by the SCOTUS this session.

At the base of the question is do gay Americans have the same rights as heterosexual Americans? And if so, do they need their constitutional rights protected at the federal level.

I've never had an openly gay friend, co-worker or family member. I did coach a little league baseball team. On that team I had a player with two Mom's. The players and the parents accepted the kid of the two Mom's as any other player. The other parents let their kids go over to the two Mom's house for sleepovers etc. It wasn't a factor to consider in the slightest.

I don't have any personal experience to know what rights is actually being denied. However, I believe that for whatever reason they were born that way. It's not a choice. You can't pray it out of them. You can't give them therapy and turn them into heterosexuals. They are what they are naturally and we should just accept them.

IMHO, the government/city/state/society have no right to tell it's citizens what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom. some of our citizens who they can and who they can't love. Who they can and can't marry. History will not be kind to the discrimination of gays, with cause. It's time to end this era of gay discrimination.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

The question behind the SC case is whether it was proper to strike down Prop 8 because it was unConstitutional.

Pretty much the precise inverse of your query.

Not sure.

The government allows for discrinimation against race and gender, for instance, if it fulfills strict scrutiny. I believe it should be the same against sexual orientation.

My question basically asks to tell me the constitutional difference between the two.

[mcan]

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

And for now you aren't so much advocating equal rights, as you're advocating additional rights to a single demographic that is pushing for it at present.

You're not even reading what I post, are you?

You clearly do not understand what rights are if you think gay people want MORE rights. They don't. That doesn't even make sense. They want to be able to be married, which has never been a "right" for anybody. Where, prey tell, is the amendment allowing for marriage? There isn't one, I'll save you the time. This is a benefit, given by the state to encourage people to have families. Like we also give tax breaks to home owners to encourage people to buy homes. Because happy families in a home are good for society. None of these benefits are RIGHTS. They can be taken off the books right now, if we vote em away. The question is, is it constitutional for the state to discriminate against gays when it comes to one or more of these benefits. It's EXACTLY the same as if we didn't allow gays to buy a home, or to take a home mortgage interest deduction. EXACTLY the same thing.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by patteeu

And it's not really even clear that people are born gay.

To who?

Originally Posted by patteeu

Do you have a better reason for applying strict scrutiny or is that all you've got?

There's absolutely no constitutional reasoning to differentiate between race and sexual orientation.

[Baby Lee]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Expediency, mostly.

What say you, anyway? Why should gay marriages not be subject to the same special benefits that black marraiges are?

I mostly could not care less. But it is irksome that it continues to be advocated as an imperative issue of equality, when in fact it's just an incremental extension of inequality to a demographic that is most vocal here and now.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by patteeu

People may well be born to be sexual predators, violent miscreants, or prone to addiction too, but that wouldn't make strict scrutiny appropriate for those groups.

Those things all harm society.

Being gay doesn't.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

when in fact it's just an incremental extension of inequality to a demographic that is most vocal here and now.

Explain yourself.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

So, only gay people should decide this issue?

WTF?

What part of I DON'T CARE are you struggling with?

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

What's the difference between a black man and a black woman getting married to each other, and two gay men getting married to each other?

What's the difference that makes one constitutional and another unconstitutional, in your eyes?

One couple wants to be treated by the same law that applies to everyone else without regard to their race. The other couple wants a brand new law created to give them special treatment heretofore unavailable to anyone (white, black, heterosexual, homosexual, etc.).

[nstygma]

Originally Posted by mcan

You're not even reading what I post, are you?

You clearly do not understand what rights are if you think gay people want MORE rights. They don't. That doesn't even make sense. They want to be able to be married, which has never been a "right" for anybody. Where, prey tell, is the amendment allowing for marriage? There isn't one, I'll save you the time. This is a benefit, given by the state to encourage people to have families. Like we also give tax breaks to home owners to encourage people to buy homes. Because happy families in a home are good for society. None of these benefits are RIGHTS. They can be taken off the books right now, if we vote em away. The question is, is it constitutional for the state to discriminate against gays when it comes to one or more of these benefits. It's EXACTLY the same as if we didn't allow gays to buy a home, or to take a home mortgage interest deduction. EXACTLY the same thing.

so if financial benefits for marriage are eliminated, gay couples will be happy?

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Dave

WTF?

What part of I DON'T CARE are you struggling with?

Your opinion is that people who care should decide this issue, or only people who are affected by this issue should decide this issue?

You've made at least one post in this thread suggesting the latter.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by patteeu

One couple wants to be treated by the same law that applies to everyone else without regard to their race. The other couple wants a brand new law created to give them special treatment heretofore unavailable to anyone (white, black, heterosexual, homosexual, etc.).

One party has a law created for them, that previously didn't exist. The other party wants a law created for them that currently doesn't exist.

Right?

[Baby Lee]

Originally Posted by mcan

You're not even reading what I post, are you?

You clearly do not understand what rights are if you think gay people want MORE rights. They don't. That doesn't even make sense. They want to be able to be married, which has never been a "right" for anybody. Where, prey tell, is the amendment allowing for marriage? There isn't one, I'll save you the time. This is a benefit, given by the state to encourage people to have families. Like we also give tax breaks to home owners to encourage people to buy homes. Because happy families in a home are good for society. None of these benefits are RIGHTS. They can be taken off the books right now, if we vote em away. The question is, is it constitutional for the state to discriminate against gays when it comes to one or more of these benefits. It's EXACTLY the same as if we didn't allow gays to buy a home, or to take a home mortgage interest deduction. EXACTLY the same thing.

In that particular instance I was engaging in a bit of Direckshun's expediency thing.

I thought it would be understood as I twice already outlined in this very thread the difference between a right to marry and a government responsibility to afford them benefits and recognition.

To that end, it seems your latest post above wants to argue with me but are in fact agreeing with me

[alnorth]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Not sure.

The government allows for discrinimation against race and gender, for instance, if it fulfills strict scrutiny. I believe it should be the same against sexual orientation.

My question basically asks to tell me the constitutional difference between the two.

Gender falls under heightened scrutiny, not strict scrutiny. I believe sexual orientation should also fall under heightened scrutiny.

[Baby Lee]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Explain yourself.

I already have many many MANY times in the past.

Not going to go into the detail I have before, but summarize by saying that there are myriad arrangements of consenting adults who don't enjoy the breaks and benefits of a hetero married couple.

And I'm not talking man on dog, or man on child.

I'm talking about communes, non-sexual best friends, polygamy, communes, groups in nursing homes, sororities and fraternities, even green card marriages. Whomever consenting adults of any size wish to declare committed union with.

This isn't making everyone equal, which it should if that's the central argument underlying the effort. It's simply plucking a single additional arrangement of consenting adults from the pool of the myriad and saying 'looks like you're finally tall enough to ride this coaster.'

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

To who?

To everyone. Some people have strong beliefs in this regard, but are we going to abandon science in favor of strongly held convictions now?

Originally Posted by Direckshun

There's absolutely no constitutional reasoning to differentiate between race and sexual orientation.

Of course there is. The reconstruction amendments (including, most relevantly, the 14th) were ratified to guarantee equality on the basis of race, not sexual preference. FFS, women's suffrage required an additional amendment.