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.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Those things all harm society.

Being gay doesn't.

So what? Your rational for applying strict scrutiny appears to be full of holes.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

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?

No.

[mcan]

Originally Posted by nstygma

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

I guess eliminating all marriage and all benefits would eliminate the inequality, but I don't know how on earth you expect that to be a legitimate solution, or why you would think for a second anyone would be "happy" about that.

This is like if a little black kid in an all white day care weren't allowed to play with any of the toys and when he asked why, the daycare took away all toys. Not a viable solution, imo.

[alnorth]

My prediction right now, before we hear oral arguments, is that the SCOTUS will rule that the 14th amendment does not allow gay marriage bans, and they will all be abruptly overturned across the country.

However, I also think they will punt on whether gays deserve heightened scrutiny, because they will decide that gay marriage bans do not survive even the rational basis test.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by alnorth

My prediction right now, before we hear oral arguments, is that the SCOTUS will rule that the 14th amendment does not allow gay marriage bans, and they will all be abruptly overturned across the country.

However, I also think they will punt on whether gays deserve heightened scrutiny, because they will decide that gay marriage bans do not survive even the rational basis test.

That's one helluva bold prediction. I'll take the other side of that bet. $100 casino cash, are we on?!

[Baby Lee]

Originally Posted by mcan

I guess eliminating all marriage and all benefits would eliminate the inequality, but I don't know how on earth you expect that to be a legitimate solution, or why you would think for a second anyone would be "happy" about that.

This is like if a little black kid in an all white day care weren't allowed to play with any of the toys and when he asked why, the daycare took away all toys. Not a viable solution, imo.

Except that you still have a bunch of kids who don't get to play with the toys, . . but that's for a 'legitimate' reasons [at present].

[alnorth]

Originally Posted by patteeu

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.

Thats no longer really the case. Equal Protection has been greatly expanded well beyond race. Any conceivable group could now fall under the equal protection clause, the only question is what standard of scrutiny is applied (almost always rational basis except for some special groups, such as race or gender). For example, Bush v Gore was basically all voters in this county vs that county, and if they were treated equally in the recounts.

Given today's interpretation of the 14th amendment, the 15th and 19th amendments are both completely obsolete.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by alnorth

Thats no longer really the case. Equal Protection has been greatly expanded well beyond race. Any conceivable group could now fall under the equal protection clause, the only question is what standard of scrutiny is applied (almost always rational basis except for some special groups, such as race or gender). For example, Bush v Gore was basically all voters in this county vs that county, and if they were treated equally in the recounts.

Given today's interpretation of the 14th amendment, the 15th and 19th amendments are both completely obsolete.

Direckshun said there isn't a constitutional argument to be had. Despite the expansions and distortions that our constitution has experienced over the past 80 years, arguing that the amendment should mean what the people who ratified it believed it meant will always be a valid constitutional argument.

[ClevelandBronco]

Flawed poll. Gays have the same rights as heterosexuals. They want different rights, but I'm fine with that.

[TrueFanDave]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

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.

No.

I said I don't care.

This has no affect on me.

Therefore, I don't care.

Does not mean I oppose gay marriage or support it.

I simply do not care.

The government should probably focus resources on trying to reduce the debt and create jobs.

This is trivial shit.

[ForeverChiefs58]

Irony is how Direckshun supports gay rights, while cheering for everyone in the ME who also want to behead and torture those people who support gay rights, womens rights, westerners, youtube videos and almost everything else in between. Go figure.

[alnorth]

Originally Posted by patteeu

Direckshun said there isn't a constitutional argument to be had. Despite the expansions and distortions that our constitution has experienced over the past 80 years, arguing that the amendment should mean what the people who ratified it believed it meant will always be a valid constitutional argument.

well sure, just like how the plaintiff in McDonald vs Chicago tried to throw a Hail Mary pass with the privileges and immunities clause argument, asking the SCOTUS to overturn the Slaughterhouse cases and over 130 years of precedent. That went nowhere except to generate some hilarious mockery from Scalia. (Clarence Thomas, who does not believe in the concept of stare decisis at all, was the only vote for that argument)

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by patteeu

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

It's not? Says who?

What is you theory? they see gay porn and decide hey, that looks good to me?

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by ClevelandBronco

Flawed poll. Gays have the same rights as heterosexuals.

BS. If they have the same rights why are there law suits and why is the SCOTUS considering the cases?

[Brock]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

It's not? Says who?

What is you theory? they see gay porn and decide hey, that looks good to me?

Some people are born gay. Others experience a change later in their lives. In either event, people don't choose what turns them on sexually. It just happens.