Is the battle for gay rights a civil rights battle?

[BigRedChief]

From Obama's inaugural speech.

"We, the people, declare today that the most evident of truths — that all of us are created equal — is the star that guides us still; just as it guided our forebears through Seneca Falls, and Selma, and Stonewall ... Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law — for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well."

Today Obama placed an original place for the battle for gay civil rights, Stonewall along side the same original battleground's for women's rights(Seneca Falls) and African-American rights(Selma).

So the poll question is............

Is the battle for gay rights a civil rights battle?

[mlyonsd]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

Here's the problem with letting states decide. If they have equal rights because its in the constitution, then it applies to every state.

Same basic principle as why JFK sent federal troops to enforce allowing blacks to enroll in any college they are qualified to attend. Why we sent troops to ensure integration in the South.

No matter the state some rights are applied at the federal level. It's the same whether its in Alabama, Georgia, New York or California. States rights don't apply here.

You're mixing apples and oranges.

The constitution says nothing about marriage. Allowing blacks to enroll in a college receiving tax money is not the same thing as not allowing a state to decide what is considered a legal marriage.

And I still don't see what rights homosexuals are losing here. If you're talking about tax code afforded a married couple as being a civil right the same would apply to a single person. If civil rights dictate a homosexual couple are afforded the same tax class as heterosexual than a single person's civil rights are violated because they don't receive the same benefit.

[mlyonsd]

Originally Posted by Chief Faithful

From the strict meaning of the Latin origin of the word civil I agree with you. When adding the cultural and historical context of the U.S. "Civil Rights" battle I no longer see all civil rights issues fitting the same context.

In our Constitution rights are inalienable not a right granted by government. Since Gays have all the same rights as everyone else the question I ask myself are we as a people not recognizing an inalienable right that exists for Gays to marry? I think this is not an issue of inalienable rights, but an issue of behavior that society has every right to decide just like pedophilia or polygamy.

Bingo. What he said.

[Brock]

Originally Posted by Prison Bitch

Wait - so you're saying that the bill the Governor of Washington pushed for....which specifically proved my assertion that the State can and will potentially wield punishment to force this....isn't valid because it had to be watered down prior to passage?


If that's your argument, it's a terrible rebuttal.

My argument is pretty simple. Churches aren't affected by Washington's law, as you seemed to have been implying. They aren't. Your "could have been" argument is meaningless.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by Prison Bitch

Yep. Just like 10 years ago, nobody was suggesting we legalize Gay marriage. 4 years ago, the Democratic nominee for President even opposed it.

Paranoia is always ugly.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by mlyonsd

The constitution says nothing about marriage.

The constitution can't explicitly speak to every scenario and situation and still be a credible document.

/paraphrasing by BRC of Lincoln's words on the constitution.

[ClevelandBronco]

It ain't Selma by a long shot, but it's the best shadow of a civil rights issue that we have left.

[Prison Bitch]

Originally Posted by Brock

My argument is pretty simple. Churches aren't affected by Washington's law, as you seemed to have been implying. They aren't. Your "could have been" argument is meaningless.

Yes, they were in the original draft. A wise man once said some years ago: "it's not paranoia if they really ARE out to get you." The Left is quiet now on the issue of churches but they absolutely believe in laws like this and the chorus will grow louder as time passes. That is why I say the Right better be ready for the nonsense when (not if) it comes.

[|Zach|]

Originally Posted by Prison Bitch

Yes, they were in the original draft. A wise man once said some years ago: "it's not paranoia if they really ARE out to get you." The Left is quiet now on the issue of churches but they absolutely believe in laws like this and the chorus will grow louder as time passes. That is why I say the Right better be ready for the nonsense when (not if) it comes.

Victim mentality.

[Comrade Crapski]

Oh, look. Another one of Jenson's girlfriends got offed:

http://www.twincities.com/wisconsin/...milwaukee-gang

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by Comrade Crapski

Oh, look. Another one of Jenson's girlfriends got offed:

http://www.twincities.com/wisconsin/...milwaukee-gang

So a male rapper gets a sex change. At some point he or she (the article doesn't say when the event occurred) helps someone else burglarize a house. A gang wants to retaliate against the rapper and tells one of its ex members that he will be let back in the gang if he kills the rapper. Instead members of the gang brutally kill the rapper, with the aid of the ex member. What the **** does this have to do with "gay rights"?

[Comrade Crapski]

Originally Posted by listopencil

What the **** does this have to do with "gay rights"?

What the **** are "gay rights"?

Because some guy sucks a dick they get affirmative action, too?

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by Comrade Crapski

What the **** are "gay rights"?

Because some guy sucks a dick they get affirmative action, too?

It's one of those catch all phrases. It doesn't really speak to the issue but people have latched onto it. I think it means letting people do things with each other if they are the same gender that other people do that are the opposite gender. Marriage is probably the biggest deal right now.

[HC_Chief]

If the state sponsors a contract (e.g. marriage), the 14th Amendment (Equal Protection clause) applies.

This can be solved via two methods: either the state must allow for "non-traditional marriages" within the confines of the law (homosexuality is not illegal, incest, polygamy, beastiality are), or the state should not sponsor and regulate marriage.

[Comrade Crapski]

Originally Posted by listopencil

It's one of those catch all phrases. It doesn't really speak to the issue but people have latched onto it. I think it means letting people do things with each other if they are the same gender that other people do that are the opposite gender. Marriage is probably the biggest deal right now.

Oh, really?

So there won't be quotas that say private companies have to hire men who wear women's clothes, right?

Shyeah, ok.

"Gay rights". what a crock o' moonbat BS.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by HC_Chief

If the state sponsors a contract (e.g. marriage), the 14th Amendment (Equal Protection clause) applies.

This can be solved via two methods: either the state must allow for "non-traditional marriages" within the confines of the law (homosexuality is not illegal, incest, polygamy, beastiality are), or the state should not sponsor and regulate marriage.

To me it's one of those issues where I don't think the government, including state governments, should get involved in anything other than as a record keeping function. It's legal for two people to get married. I don't see the logic in limiting that by gender. I understand age limits. There is a history in this country of minor women being coerced into marriage. Couple that with the legal concept of youngsters not being considered able to give consent in many situations and I think that it's a valid point.