| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
25 Mar 2005 07:35:19 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
"Maverick" <justgopub...@nomail.com> wrote:
:|I am passing along what the Supreme Court said. Many people try to pass off
:|the "marriage is civil right" phrase without including the entire text. What
:|the court said is that "marriage AND procreation" combine to form a
:|fundamental right basic to the survival of the race. Simple logic proves
:|this. Can we survive without marriage? Sure we can. Can we survive without
:|procreation. Not for long. In the days that this decision was taken, society
:|frowned upon unwedded child bearing. Thus, when the Supreme Court decided a
:|number of cases on the basis that "procreation" was fundamental to our
:|survival, they included marriage as a matter of political correctness of the
:|times. When the homosexual community attempts to use a case that claims
:|"marriage is a civil right" as a basis for same sex marriage they are being
:|dishonest. Marriage is a contract between 3 separate entities. A husband, a
:|wife and a state. It is not a right. A person can give up a right, such as
:|"you have the right to remain silent, if you give up this right", without
:|government accompaniment. No one can give up a legal marriage without
:|government accompaniment. They have to get court approval to disolve the
:|marriage. Even if it was a common law marriage, if there is property or
:|children involved.
What formal training have you had in law?
Do you know the meaning of Issues, Facts, Holding, Held, Ruled, Ruling,
Dicta?
Let's look at some important things:
LOVING v. VIRGINIA, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=388&invol=1
[Holding]
Virginia's statutory scheme to prevent marriages between persons solely on
the basis of racial classifications held to violate the Equal Protection
and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 4-12.
206 Va. 924, 147 S. E. 2d 78, reversed.
*****************************************************************************
SOME MORE INFO:
http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/214/
http://www.4lawschool.com/conlaw/love.shtml
http://www.4lawschool.com/conlaw/lov.shtml
Loving v. Virginia
http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=Loving%20v.%20Virginia
What Chief Justice Warren said
The clear and central purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to eliminate
all official sources of invidious racial discrimination in the States.
There can be no question but that Virginia's miscegenation statutes rest
solely upon distinctions drawn according to race. The statutes proscribe
generally accepted conduct if engaged in by members of different races. At
the very least, the Equal Protection Clause demands that racial
classifications, especially suspect in criminal statutes, be subjected to
the "most rigid scrutiny", and, if they are ever to be upheld, they must be
shown to be necessary to the accomplishment of some permissible state
objective, independent of the racial discrimination which was the object of
the Fourteenth Amendment to eliminate. Indeed, two members of this Court
have already stated that they "cannot conceive of a valid legislative
purpose...which makes the color of a person's skin the test of whether his
conduct is a criminal offense."
These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of
law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The
freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal
rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very
existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so
unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these
statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of
equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all
the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth
Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by
invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to
marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual
and cannot be infringed by the State.
*********************************************************************************
The Marriage Cases
http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1707576
f a law doesn't infringe on a fundamental rights or involve a "suspect
class", it can still be challenged as totally arbitrary and unreasonable.
As long as the government can advance a "rational basis" for a law, it
survives the test. The reason doesn't have to be based on evidence or
facts, it just has to make sense. In effect, the judge says, "Give me one
good reason why the government needs this law" and if a lawyer can make up
a good reason off the top of his head, then the law stands. Here Judge
Kramer's opinion rests on solid United States Supreme Court precedent. The
Supreme Court has thrown out a Colorado law which abolished local civil
rights laws protecting homosexuals (equal access to housing, employment,
etc.) using the "rational basis test". Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996).
Also, the Supreme Court has recognized that sexual activity between
consenting adults is a protected exercise of "liberty", and struck down
Texas' sodomy laws. Lawrence v. Texas, 539 US 558 (2003). Technically,
Lawrence was a Due Process case, not an Equal Protection case, and the
Court stated that its holding did not extend to the issue of same-sex
marriage. Lawrence does foreclose, however, the easiest "rational basis"
argument the government could have made here: that sodomy is a crime and
prohibiting same-sex marriage helps fight crime.
Now that sodomy laws are unconstitutional, opponents of same-sex marriage
are struggling to find a rationale for their position which will stand up
in a court of law. "The Bible says so" is not a very effective legal
argument, especially in this case, where the Bible says no such thing. The
government, pointing out that California law already extends many of the
legal protections of marriage to same-sex couples, tried to make a case
that California was not discriminating against homosexuals, but asserted
that the government had an interest in reserving the term "marriage" for
couples who can procreate. Citing language in some 19th century California
cases, the government argued that it had a legitimate purpose in defining
"marriage" to include only couples who can procreate. Judge Kramer
dispensed with this argument by pointing out that opposite sex couples who
either cannot or do not want children are allowed to marry in California.
In California, the judge observed, "One does not have to be married in
order to procreate, nor does one have to procreate in order to be married."
Moreover, Judge Kramer noted, the fact that same-sex couples enjoyed all
the benefits of marriage under California law, except the dignity of the
name of "marriage", suggests that there was no legitimate government
purpose for the law depriving them of that dignity. Tradition isn't enough,
when entire classes are being denied fundamental rights for no reason other
than tradition.
Opponents of same-sex marriage immediately stepped up to microphones to
call the decision "ludicrous", "mind-boggling", "activist", and "judicial
tyranny". Talking heads on the television announced in grave tones that the
decision "was certain to be appealed", suggesting there was something wrong
with it. In fact, while the decision will be appealed, it will be affirmed.
In light of controlling precedent from the United States Supreme Court and
similar California State Supreme Court rulings, it does not appear to me
that Judge Kramer (who is decribed to be a Catholic and Republican in his
personal life) had much choice in ruling the way he did, nor will the
California Supreme Court.
Judge Kramer's decision was expressly based on the Constitution of the
State of California. This has led some same-sex marriage opponents to
announce that they will seek to amend the state constitution. State
constitutions are easier to amend than the federal Constitution. Two bills
are pending before the California Legislature that would put a
constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage on the November ballot,
and if the passage of Proposition 22 (one of the laws defining marriage in
California as between a man and a woman) is any indication, such an
amendment could succeed. State constitutional amendments prohibiting
same-sex marriage passed last year in a dozen states.
Amendments to state constitutions will not help in the inevitable battle at
the federal level. The cases cited by Judge Kramer —United States Supreme
Court decisions based on the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal
Constitution— show that his decision was compelled by the United States
Constitution. Thus, opponents of same-sex marriage will have to muster
better arguments to persuade the United States Supreme Court, or gather
together the super-majority (3/4) of state legislatures necessary to amend
the United States Constitution, if they expect to prevail in the end. A
dozen "red states" are not enough to amend the federal Constitution.
In the Supreme Court, the only plausible argument I can think of would be
something based on the New Federalism: the notion that some areas of law
are for the States to decide. Granted, this would sound a lot like the
"States Rights" arguments which were shot down in flames during the civil
rights movement. "States Rights" might be more acceptable to the Court now,
if it were limited to marriage and domestic relations laws, which in the
United States have always been the prerogative of state legislatures to
define and regulate, and which vary considerably from state to state. This
would require, however, some fancy legal footwork to distinguish Loving v.
Virginia, Romer v. Evans, and Lawrence v. Texas, and I don't give it a
snowball's chance in Hell. If the commentary on this case from the
Religious Right is any indication, they will certainly fail to persuade the
necessary supermajority of the American people. As Lincoln said, "You can
fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the
time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time."
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942)
Sterilization, Eugenics, and Privacy
http://atheism.about.com/library/decisions/privacy/bldec_SkinnerOK.htm
Significance
In this decision, the Supreme Court held that the acts of marriage and
procreation were fundamental rights of all people, even though the
Constitution does not specifically list them as such. Thus, a private
sphere of conduct between individuals was being recognized.
*******************************************************************************************
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/skinner.html
But the instant legislation runs afoul of the equal protection clause,
though we give Oklahoma that large deference which the rule of the
foregoing cases requires. We are dealing here with legislation which
involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are
fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race. The power to
sterilize, if exercised, may have subtle, far-reaching and devastating
effects. In evil or reckless hands it can cause races or types which are
inimical to the dominant group to wither and disappear. There is no
redemption for the individual whom the law touches.
***********************************************************************************
Marriage and precreation does not mean procreation is required. It does
not mean even a potential for precreation is required.
It is absurb for you to imply or suggest otherwise. If they were so tests
would have to be made upon application fopr a marriage lic to ensure both
persons were capable of producing childern. They would have to swear they
wantd children and were going to try and have children.
Anyone who was infertile, or did not want to produce children would be,
based on your your position, denied the right to marry
How stupid your position is when actually looked at.
SUMMING UP
The Court's decisions have afforded constitutional protection to personal
decisions relating to marriage, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1,
procreation, Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, family relationships,
Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, child rearing and education, Pierce
v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, and contraception, see, e.g., Griswold
v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, and have recognized the right of the
individual to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters
so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or
beget a child, Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, 453. Roe's central
holding properly invoked the reasoning and tradition of these precedents.
Pp. 846-853.
CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION TO PERSONAL DECISIONS RELATING TO MARRIAGE:
LOVING v VIRGINIA, PROCREATION: SKINNER v OKLAHOMA
Marriage is a fundamental right, precreation is a fundamenetal right.
However, unliKe what you are trying to sell, precreation is not a required
standard for marriage.
Check out Griswold v Connecticut.
************************************************************************
http://www.bpf.org/html/resources_and_links/statements/pdfs/samesexmarriage.pdf
Here are a few facts to consider:
• In 1967, when interracial marriage was legalized, the U.S. Supreme Court
ruled that “marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man [sic],
fundamental to our very existence and survival.”
• Civil marriage offers 1,049 federal protections and benefits. Hundreds
more are offered by every state. These include rights that cover medical
emergencies, taxes, financial issues, inheritance, burial decisions,
adoption, family law, employment benefits, immigration, Social Security,
housing, and veterans’ benefits.
• In 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that the ban on same-sex
marriage is unconstitutional, and the first state-sanctioned same-sex
marriages began on May 17, 2004.
• Some cities and states offer domestic partnership benefits, Vermont
offers civil unions, and Hawaii has “reciprocal beneficiaries.” However,
these forms of partnership fall short of civil marriage, offering only a
handful of state rights and responsibilities, which are not transferable to
another state, and no federal rights. • Same-gender couples already legally
marry in the Netherlands, Belgium, and Canada. The U.S. does not recognize
these marriages within the U.S.
• If ratified, the proposed U.S. constitutional amendment prohibiting
same-sex marriage would be the only constitutional amendment in history,
with the exception of Prohibition (which was repealed), to reduce civil
rights. Every other constitutional amendment has expanded civil rights.
• State-sanctioned marriage would not require any religious organization to
perform or recognize any marriage. No legislative enactment will change the
tenets of any religious faith. In the spirit of freedom, justice, civil
rights, and equal protection under the law for all human beings, the
Buddhist Peace Fellowship supports civil marriage for samegender couples
who choose to marry and to share fully and equally in the rights and
responsibilities of marriage. We oppose a U.S. constitutional amendment to
prohibit the basic civil right of marriage for same-gender couples.
*******************************************************************************
- Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 US 833,851
(1992)
The following is how Justice Ling-Cohan follows up on the above point:
Under both the Federal and New York State Constitutions, it is beyond
question that the right to liberty, and the concomitant right toprivacy,
extend to protect marriage. The United States Supreme Court has long
recognized the fundamental importance of marriage. As early as 1888, in
Maynard v. Hill (125 US 190, 205, 211 [1888]), the Supreme Court stated
that marriage “creat[es] the most important relation in life” and is “the
foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be
neither civilization nor progress.”
In 1923, the Supreme Court in Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 US 390, 399 (1923),
recognized that the right “to marry, establish a home and bring up
children” is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process
Clause. Nineteen years later, in Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 US at 541 (1942),
it described marriage as “fundamental to the very existence and survival of
the race.” In 1967, the Loving Court recognized marriage as a fundamental
right under the Constitution, striking down the state’s antimiscegenation
statute: “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital
personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free
men... Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man,’ fundamental to
our very existence and survival.” 388 US at 12 (quoting Skinner, supraat
541).
One decade later, in Zablocki v. Redhail, (434 US at 384 [1978]), the Court
reaffirmed its holding in Loving, stating that “[a]lthough Loving arose in
the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of
this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for
all individuals.” Furthermore, the Supreme Court has noted that marriage is
a: “right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights – older than our
political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming
together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to a
degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life,
not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty,
not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a
purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.”
Griswold v. Conn., 381 US at 486 (emphasis supplied). The Supreme Court has
“long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and
family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment.” Cleveland Bd of Ed v. LaFleur, 414 US 632,
639-40 (1974); see also Zablocki, 434 US at 384 (quoting Griswold, supra).
As stated by the Supreme Court: “At the heart of liberty is the right to
define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of
the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the
attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State.”
Lawrence v.Texas, 539 US 558, 574 (2003) (quoting Planned Parenthood of
Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 US at 851). The Court further
emphasized that “[t]hese matters, involving the most intimate and personal
choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal
dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the
Fourteenth Amendment.” Id.
As other States have also observed, the right to marry "is not a privilege
conferred by the State, but a fundamental right that is protected against
unwarranted State interference." Goodridge v. Department of Public Health,
440 Mass at 345, 798 NE2d at 970 (Greaney, J. concurring). "[I]t is a
fundamental right of free men." Perez v. Sharp, 32 Cal 2d at 714, 198 P2d
at 19.
The second aspect of the fundamental right to marry, which is what this
action concerns, is the right to choose whom one marries. The right to
choose one's spouse "resides with the individual." See Loving, 388 US at 12
(freedom to marry embraces the choice to select a partner across racial
lines which cannot be infringed by State);Perez, 32 Cal 2d 711, supra
(same); Goodridge, 440 Mass 309, supra (freedom to marry person of same
sex). "The right to marry means little if it does not include the right to
marry the person of one's choice..." Goodridge, 440 Mass at 227, 798 NE2d
at 958. See also Perez, 32 Cal 2d at 715, 198 P2d at 19 ("right to marry is
the right to join in marriage with the person of one's choice"); Brause v.
Bureau of Vital Statistics, 1998 WL 88743*6 (Alaska Super)(deciding whom to
marry is a fundamental right, whether decision results in traditional or
nontraditional choice), superseded by Alaska Const Art 1, § 25 (effective
Jan. 3, 1999) (providing that a valid marriage "may exist only between one
man and one woman").
Because the exclusion of same-sex couples from eligibility for civil
marriage infringes the fundamental right to choose one's spouse, such
exclusion may be sustained only if it serves a compelling state interest.
The Supreme Court has consistently reaffirmed that, since the freedom to
marry is a fundamental right, restrictions that “significantly interfere
with decisions to enter into the marital relationship” are subject to
“rigorous scrutiny” and “cannot be upheld unless ... supported by
sufficiently important state interests ...closely tailored to effectuate
only those interests.” Zablocki, 434 US at 386-388.
There are three decisions concerning the right of a gay couple to marry:
Hernandez, et al., v. Victor L Robles, City Clerk of the City of New York,
Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, from Massachusetts, and Heather
Anderson and Leslie Christina; et al., v. King County, et al. from the
state of Washington. All three concur that marriage and the right to choose
one's partner in marriage, are fundamental rights protected by the U.S.
Constitution. All three confirm that it is unconstitutional to disallow gay
couples the right to marry.
.
|
|
| User: "Analyst" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
02 Apr 2005 01:09:16 PM |
|
|
LeMod Pol <modpol@igs.net> wrote in news:424E9ED4.DB37386B@igs.net:
Idiot Junkie whined:
On 29 Mar 2005 09:24:06 -0800, wrote:
Because if we don't then, 1) we will be discriminating against a
class of people, and 2) we will deny those people a right which is
essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
The "bottom line" is that there are proponents of the gay lifestyle
that have been unable to convince the majority of society to accept
their lifestyle.
Yes -- that is the "bottomline" -- the one coming out
of your *****.
The poster suggested it would be likely be subject to illogical personal
attack. You just supported at least one of his arguments and skewered
yourself in the process. ;p
By failing to convince the majority, the proponents of the gay
lifestyle have opted to challenge society, by challenging the
laws-on-the-books through the court system in an attempt to have
their beliefs adjudicated as a bonfide minority status at the same
level as blacks or women based on Article XIV.
More hypocrisy and inane junk coming from the idiot junkie.
What part of the preceeding paragraph is hypocritical? What makes it
inane? And why do you attack the poster rather than his arguments?
--
LP
"A little sunlight is the best disinfectant," Supreme
Court Justice Louis Brandeis commented. "Never
more so than when it exposes towering hypocrisy."
.
|
|
|
| User: "LeMod Pol" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
02 Apr 2005 07:02:38 PM |
|
|
Original newsgroups restored
Analyst wrote:
LeMod Pol <modpol@igs.net> wrote in news:424E9ED4.DB37386B@igs.net:
Idiot Junkie whined:
On 29 Mar 2005 09:24:06 -0800, wrote:
Because if we don't then, 1) we will be discriminating against a
class of people, and 2) we will deny those people a right which is
essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
The "bottom line" is that there are proponents of the gay lifestyle
that have been unable to convince the majority of society to accept
their lifestyle.
Yes -- that is the "bottomline" -- the one coming out
of your *****.
The poster suggested it would be likely be subject to illogical personal
attack. You just supported at least one of his arguments and skewered
yourself in the process. ;p
LOL
Nobody cares what an idiot troll says least of all me.
Neither you nor the "idiot junkie" warrant the
slightest consideration.
By failing to convince the majority, the proponents of the gay
lifestyle have opted to challenge society, by challenging the
laws-on-the-books through the court system in an attempt to have
their beliefs adjudicated as a bonfide minority status at the same
level as blacks or women based on Article XIV.
More hypocrisy and inane junk coming from the idiot junkie.
What part of the preceeding paragraph is hypocritical? What makes it
inane? And why do you attack the poster rather than his arguments?
It in its entirety. the idiot junkie and his spew are
inseparable. I just play it as it lays.
--
LP
"A little sunlight is the best disinfectant," Supreme
Court Justice Louis Brandeis commented. "Never
more so than when it exposes towering hypocrisy."
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Info Junkie" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
02 Apr 2005 01:52:48 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 08:33:47 -0500, LeMod Pol <modpol@igs.net> wrote:
Idiot Junkie whined:
On 29 Mar 2005 09:24:06 -0800, wrote:
Because if we don't then, 1) we will be discriminating against a class
of people, and 2) we will deny those people a right which is essential
to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
The "bottom line" is that there are proponents of the gay lifestyle that have
been unable to convince the majority of society to accept their lifestyle.
Yes -- that is the "bottomline" -- the one coming out
of your *****.
As I noted; "I've no doubt, some in these NGs will disagree, and I suspect would
be attacked by many of the same fallacies currently seen in these NGs."
I appreciate your confirmation of that point.
By failing to convince the majority, the proponents of the gay lifestyle have
opted to challenge society, by challenging the laws-on-the-books through the
court system in an attempt to have their beliefs adjudicated as a bonfide
minority status at the same level as blacks or women based on Article XIV.
More hypocrisy and inane junk coming from the idiot junkie.
Again, little more than fallacies.
"...every person must be his own watchman for truth... -Justice Jackson
.
|
|
|
| User: "LeMod Pol" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
02 Apr 2005 07:15:13 PM |
|
|
Original newsgroups restored
Idiot Junkie whined:
On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 08:33:47 -0500, LeMod Pol <modpol@igs.net> wrote:
Idiot Junkie whined:
On 29 Mar 2005 09:24:06 -0800, wrote:
Because if we don't then, 1) we will be discriminating against a class
of people, and 2) we will deny those people a right which is essential
to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
The "bottom line" is that there are proponents of the gay lifestyle that have
been unable to convince the majority of society to accept their lifestyle.
Yes -- that is the "bottomline" -- the one coming out
of your *****.
As I noted; "I've no doubt, some in these NGs will disagree, and I suspect would
be attacked by many of the same fallacies currently seen in these NGs."
Of course you expect it because you know that you are a
walking, talking fallacy and everything you spew is
false <GG>
--
LP
"A little sunlight is the best disinfectant," Supreme
Court Justice Louis Brandeis commented. "Never
more so than when it exposes towering hypocrisy."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Info Junkie" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
03 Apr 2005 06:49:11 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 20:15:13 -0500, LeMod Pol <modpol@igs.net> wrote:
Original newsgroups restored
Idiot Junkie whined:
On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 08:33:47 -0500, LeMod Pol <modpol@igs.net> wrote:
Idiot Junkie whined:
On 29 Mar 2005 09:24:06 -0800, wrote:
Because if we don't then, 1) we will be discriminating against a class
of people, and 2) we will deny those people a right which is essential
to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
The "bottom line" is that there are proponents of the gay lifestyle that have
been unable to convince the majority of society to accept their lifestyle.
Yes -- that is the "bottomline" -- the one coming out
of your *****.
As I noted; "I've no doubt, some in these NGs will disagree, and I suspect would
be attacked by many of the same fallacies currently seen in these NGs."
Of course you expect it because you know that you are a
walking, talking fallacy and everything you spew is
false <GG>
I "expect" such responses from relative newbies to Usenet, but thanks for
confirming you can not dispute that provided you, instead relying on fallacies
and ad hominem in lieu of facts.
"...every person must be his own watchman for truth... -Justice Jackson
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "L. Michael Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
01 Apr 2005 11:31:33 PM |
|
|
Info Junkie wrote:
On 29 Mar 2005 09:24:06 -0800, wrote:
Maverick wrote:
<snip>
While the debate rages on, unlike the definitive genetic and physical
differences wrt race and gender, no differences are found to exist to justify
"preferntial" treament over heterosexuals.
Please lists the "preferential" treatment that you feel homosexuals are
seeking.
<snip>
--
+==================== L. Michael Roberts ======================+
This represents my personal opinion and NOT Company policy
Goderich, Ont, Canada. To reply, post a request for my valid E-mail
"Life is a sexually transmitted, terminal, condition"
+================================================================+
.
|
|
|
| User: "Analyst" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
02 Apr 2005 12:58:34 PM |
|
|
"L. Michael Roberts" <L_Michael_Roberts@nospam.com> wrote in
news:O7CdnZOBhIa0s9PfRVn-3g@golden.net:
Info Junkie wrote:
On 29 Mar 2005 09:24:06 -0800, wrote:
Maverick wrote:
<snip>
While the debate rages on, unlike the definitive genetic and physical
differences wrt race and gender, no differences are found to exist to
justify "preferntial" treament over heterosexuals.
Please lists the "preferential" treatment that you feel
homosexuals are
seeking.
<snip>
Yet another rational response!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Info Junkie" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
02 Apr 2005 01:10:18 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 00:31:33 -0500, "L. Michael Roberts"
<L_Michael_Roberts@nospam.com> wrote:
Info Junkie wrote:
On 29 Mar 2005 09:24:06 -0800, wrote:
Maverick wrote:
<snip>
While the debate rages on, unlike the definitive genetic and physical
differences wrt race and gender, no differences are found to exist to justify
"preferntial" treament over heterosexuals.
Please lists the "preferential" treatment that you feel homosexuals are
seeking.
Why those treatments currently afforded women and minorities under a "protected
status" as depicted in a variety of afirmative action programs and as protected
under Articles XIX and XIV (respectively), of course. Some of these may include
hiring and housing quotas as an example.
"...every person must be his own watchman for truth... -Justice Jackson
.
|
|
|
| User: "LeMod Pol" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
02 Apr 2005 02:11:24 PM |
|
|
Info Junkie wrote:
On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 00:31:33 -0500, "L. Michael Roberts"
<L_Michael_Roberts@nospam.com> wrote:
Please lists the "preferential" treatment that you feel homosexuals are
seeking.
Why those treatments currently afforded women and minorities under a "protected
status" as depicted in a variety of afirmative action programs and as protected
under Articles XIX and XIV (respectively), of course. Some of these may include
hiring and housing quotas as an example.
can you offer any proof of those
I have not seen anything like that mentioned.
what they are seeking are the "rights" - not
"privileges" that married status carries.
--
LP
"A little sunlight is the best disinfectant," Supreme
Court Justice Louis Brandeis commented. "Never
more so than when it exposes towering hypocrisy."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Info Junkie" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
02 Apr 2005 03:43:27 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 15:11:24 -0500, LeMod Pol <modpol@igs.net> wrote:
Info Junkie wrote:
On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 00:31:33 -0500, "L. Michael Roberts"
<L_Michael_Roberts@nospam.com> wrote:
Please lists the "preferential" treatment that you feel homosexuals are
seeking.
Why those treatments currently afforded women and minorities under a "protected
status" as depicted in a variety of afirmative action programs and as protected
under Articles XIX and XIV (respectively), of course. Some of these may include
hiring and housing quotas as an example.
can you offer any proof of those
I have not seen anything like that mentioned.
what they are seeking are the "rights" - not
"privileges" that married status carries.
Note I didn't mention "marriage" wrt "minorities". Non sequitur.
Try looking for the multiples Affirmative Action programs offered to minorites
and women. While not agreeing with nor against any opinion within this example,
here but one URL that is shows a few:
* At least 10 percent of Agency for International Development contracts
for famine recovery and development aid must go to minority businesses.
* The Federal Deposit Insurance corporation has the authority to relax
standards for approving bank takeovers by minority holding companies.
* The Labor Department requires state agencies aiding migrant farm
workers to employ staffs reflecting the racial and ethnic composition of
local work forces.
* The Small Business Administration's Section 8(a) program steers federal
contracts to minority and women-owned firms.
http://www.ncpa.org/pd/social/sociald.html
Feel free to continue your own research, as none of the above are "rights" but
in fact are "privileges" but offering such *incentives* of some groups over
non-minorities (including gender).
"...every person must be his own watchman for truth... -Justice Jackson
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "L. Michael Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
02 Apr 2005 04:23:16 PM |
|
|
Info Junkie wrote:
On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 00:31:33 -0500, "L. Michael Roberts"
<L_Michael_Roberts@nospam.com> wrote:
Info Junkie wrote:
On 29 Mar 2005 09:24:06 -0800, wrote:
Maverick wrote:
<snip>
While the debate rages on, unlike the definitive genetic and physical
differences wrt race and gender, no differences are found to exist to justify
"preferntial" treament over heterosexuals.
Please lists the "preferential" treatment that you feel homosexuals are
seeking.
Why those treatments currently afforded women and minorities under a "protected
status" as depicted in a variety of afirmative action programs
I have yet to see any gays advocating for "protected status" or
"affirmative action". Perhaps you could post some verifiable citations
to back up this assertion of yours?
and as protected
under Articles XIX and XIV (respectively), of course. Some of these may include
hiring and housing quotas as an example.
Again, I have yet to see anyone advocating for anything other then
EQUAL treatment before the law, I welcome your posting of verifiable
citations.
<snip>
--
+==================== L. Michael Roberts ======================+
This represents my personal opinion and NOT Company policy
Goderich, Ont, Canada. To reply, post a request for my valid E-mail
"Life is a sexually transmitted, terminal, condition"
+================================================================+
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
02 Apr 2005 07:08:01 PM |
|
|
"L. Michael Roberts" <L_Michael_Roberts@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:kLKdndk6IoDYhtLfRVn-sQ@golden.net...
Info Junkie wrote:
On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 00:31:33 -0500, "L. Michael Roberts"
<L_Michael_Roberts@nospam.com> wrote:
Info Junkie wrote:
On 29 Mar 2005 09:24:06 -0800, wrote:
Maverick wrote:
<snip>
While the debate rages on, unlike the definitive genetic and physical
differences wrt race and gender, no differences are found to exist to
justify
"preferntial" treament over heterosexuals.
Please lists the "preferential" treatment that you feel homosexuals are
seeking.
Why those treatments currently afforded women and minorities under a
"protected
status" as depicted in a variety of afirmative action programs
I have yet to see any gays advocating for "protected status" or
"affirmative action".
Liar.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fritz" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
03 Apr 2005 01:54:56 AM |
|
|
Dana wrote:
"L. Michael Roberts" <L_Michael_Roberts@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:kLKdndk6IoDYhtLfRVn-sQ@golden.net...
Info Junkie wrote:
On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 00:31:33 -0500, "L. Michael Roberts"
<L_Michael_Roberts@nospam.com> wrote:
Info Junkie wrote:
On 29 Mar 2005 09:24:06 -0800, wrote:
Maverick wrote:
<snip>
While the debate rages on, unlike the definitive genetic and physical
differences wrt race and gender, no differences are found to exist to
justify
"preferntial" treament over heterosexuals.
Please lists the "preferential" treatment that you feel homosexuals are
seeking.
Why those treatments currently afforded women and minorities under a
"protected
status" as depicted in a variety of afirmative action programs
I have yet to see any gays advocating for "protected status" or
"affirmative action".
Liar.
What is he lying about?
-- Fritz ...
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Info Junkie" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
03 Apr 2005 06:41:23 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 17:23:16 -0500, "L. Michael Roberts"
<L_Michael_Roberts@nospam.com> wrote:
Info Junkie wrote:
On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 00:31:33 -0500, "L. Michael Roberts"
<L_Michael_Roberts@nospam.com> wrote:
Info Junkie wrote:
On 29 Mar 2005 09:24:06 -0800, wrote:
Maverick wrote:
<snip>
While the debate rages on, unlike the definitive genetic and physical
differences wrt race and gender, no differences are found to exist to justify
"preferntial" treament over heterosexuals.
Please lists the "preferential" treatment that you feel homosexuals are
seeking.
Why those treatments currently afforded women and minorities under a "protected
status" as depicted in a variety of afirmative action programs
I have yet to see any gays advocating for "protected status" or
"affirmative action". Perhaps you could post some verifiable citations
to back up this assertion of yours?
Just to name a few:
http://www.gaycitynews.com/gcn225/advocatestodevelop.html
http://www.pflag.org/index.php?id=274
http://www.gaycitynews.com/gcn225/advocatestodevelop.html
http://www.hrc.org/Content/ContentGroups/Issues1/Health/Housing_and_HIV_AIDS.htm
and as protected
under Articles XIX and XIV (respectively), of course. Some of these may include
hiring and housing quotas as an example.
Again, I have yet to see anyone advocating for anything other then
EQUAL treatment before the law, I welcome your posting of verifiable
citations.
Just to name a few:
http://www.gaycitynews.com/gcn225/advocatestodevelop.html
http://www.pflag.org/index.php?id=274
http://www.gaycitynews.com/gcn225/advocatestodevelop.html
http://www.hrc.org/Content/ContentGroups/Issues1/Health/Housing_and_HIV_AIDS.htm
"...every person must be his own watchman for truth... -Justice Jackson
.
|
|
|
| User: "L. Michael Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
03 Apr 2005 10:36:59 AM |
|
|
Info Junkie wrote:
On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 17:23:16 -0500, "L. Michael Roberts"
<L_Michael_Roberts@nospam.com> wrote:
Info Junkie wrote:
On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 00:31:33 -0500, "L. Michael Roberts"
<L_Michael_Roberts@nospam.com> wrote:
Info Junkie wrote:
On 29 Mar 2005 09:24:06 -0800, wrote:
Maverick wrote:
<snip>
Please lists the "preferential" treatment that you feel homosexuals are
seeking.
Why those treatments currently afforded women and minorities under a "protected
status" as depicted in a variety of afirmative action programs
I have yet to see any gays advocating for "protected status" or
"affirmative action". Perhaps you could post some verifiable citations
to back up this assertion of yours?
Just to name a few:
http://www.gaycitynews.com/gcn225/advocatestodevelop.html
http://www.pflag.org/index.php?id=274
http://www.gaycitynews.com/gcn225/advocatestodevelop.html
I fail to see anything other than calls for EQUAL treatment before the
laws in the above pages.
http://www.hrc.org/Content/ContentGroups/Issues1/Health/Housing_and_HIV_AIDS.htm
AIDS is not a "gay disease" thus any changes in housing policies for
people with AIDS will affect all of society and can not be considered as
a special status available only to gays.
<snip repeated URLs>
--
+==================== L. Michael Roberts ======================+
This represents my personal opinion and NOT Company policy
Goderich, Ont, Canada. To reply, post a request for my valid E-mail
"Life is a sexually transmitted, terminal, condition"
+================================================================+
.
|
|
|
| User: "Info Junkie" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
08 Apr 2005 10:59:37 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 11:36:59 -0400, "L. Michael Roberts"
<L_Michael_Roberts@nospam.com> wrote:
Info Junkie wrote:
On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 17:23:16 -0500, "L. Michael Roberts"
<L_Michael_Roberts@nospam.com> wrote:
Info Junkie wrote:
On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 00:31:33 -0500, "L. Michael Roberts"
<L_Michael_Roberts@nospam.com> wrote:
Info Junkie wrote:
On 29 Mar 2005 09:24:06 -0800, wrote:
Maverick wrote:
<snip>
Please lists the "preferential" treatment that you feel homosexuals are
seeking.
Why those treatments currently afforded women and minorities under a "protected
status" as depicted in a variety of afirmative action programs
I have yet to see any gays advocating for "protected status" or
"affirmative action". Perhaps you could post some verifiable citations
to back up this assertion of yours?
Just to name a few:
http://www.gaycitynews.com/gcn225/advocatestodevelop.html
http://www.pflag.org/index.php?id=274
http://www.gaycitynews.com/gcn225/advocatestodevelop.html
I fail to see anything other than calls for EQUAL treatment before the
laws in the above pages.
Not that the URLs provided you aren't evidence, but that you "fail to see
anything"...understood. At least make the attempt to read the URLs before
dismissing them, eh?
(1st URL: http://www.gaycitynews.com/gcn225/advocatestodevelop.html)
" A variety of transgender rights groups had, over the past four years, enlisted
support for amending the proposed legislation from nearly all major gay and
lesbian rights groups, including the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the National
Gay and Lesbian Rights Task Force (NGLTF), Parents and Friends of Lesbians and
Gays (PFLAG), and the AFL-CIO’s Pride at Work."
(2nd URL: http://www.pflag.org/index.php?id=274)
The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) would extend federal employment
discrimination protections currently provided based on race, religion, gender,
national origin, age and disability to cover sexual orientation also....PFLAG
supports inclusion of gender identity or expression in ENDA."
Note they wish to "extend...protections". The "discrimination" charge is but a
euphemism for a "protected status" that doesn't meet the criteria the courts
have used under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
(3rd URL re-pasted from the 1st - my error)
Since you wish others to *spell-it-out-for-you*, try the following:
"Clinton Backs Affirmative Action for Homosexuals 6/29/1998
On May 28, President Bill Clinton signed an executive order that essentially
made homosexuals eligible for affirmative action in federal hiring. "
(http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=1004&department=CWA&categoryid=family)
and
(Cincinnati - City Council member John Cranley):
"...he (Cranley) had the support of civil rights activists in both the GLBT
community and the larger community.
Cranley added that he considered the ordinance to be a "major step forward" in
repairing Cincinnati’s image, which has been tarnished by racial tensions and
Article 12. The charter amendment prohibits any city ordinance giving minority
or protected status to people based on sexual orientation or preference."
(http://www.gaypeopleschronicle.com/stories03/03feb7.htm)
http://www.hrc.org/Content/ContentGroups/Issues1/Health/Housing_and_HIV_AIDS.htm
AIDS is not a "gay disease" thus any changes in housing policies for
people with AIDS will affect all of society and can not be considered as
a special status available only to gays.
Unfortunately, you making an assertion wrt something I've neiuther stated nor
implies, ie., I've not said AIDS is a "gay disease". Yet the URL provided
specifically states: "Working for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender equal
rights". Where in the article do they state or imply they support "equal
rights" for heterosexual AIDS-infected people?
OTOH, since the majority of such governmental programs are intended to target a
specific groups, whom with this disease would be the greatest beneficiary of the
HOPWA program? The primary "target" then would be homsexuals.
The first URL below shows the majority of AIDS cases are among homosexuals
males, where the second URL shows heterosexual males that contracted this
disease did so primarily through drug use:
(http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/graphics/images/l178/l178-16.htm)
(http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/graphics/images/l178/l178-17.htm)
"...every person must be his own watchman for truth... -Justice Jackson
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
01 Apr 2005 07:55:17 PM |
|
|
Info Junkie wrote:
On 29 Mar 2005 09:24:06 -0800, wrote:
While the debate rages on, unlike the definitive genetic and physical
differences wrt race and gender, no differences are found to exist to justify
"preferntial" treament over heterosexuals.
What preferential treatment?
There is no "gay gene", ergo, no
separate "class" of beings known as homosexuals, male or female, exists to
justify a "minority" status equating to those based on race or gender.
How do you explain Romer v. Evans?
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "Analyst" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
02 Apr 2005 12:57:06 PM |
|
|
Josh Rosenbluth <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in
news:xJOdnYWV9K0bZtDfRVn-qQ@comcast.com:
Info Junkie wrote:
On 29 Mar 2005 09:24:06 -0800, wrote:
While the debate rages on, unlike the definitive genetic and physical
differences wrt race and gender, no differences are found to exist to
justify "preferntial" treament over heterosexuals.
What preferential treatment?
There is no "gay gene", ergo, no
separate "class" of beings known as homosexuals, male or female,
exists to justify a "minority" status equating to those based on race
or gender.
How do you explain Romer v. Evans?
Josh Rosenbluth
Yay! A rational reply and criticism! :D
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Info Junkie" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
02 Apr 2005 01:16:12 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 20:55:17 -0500, Josh Rosenbluth
<jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote:
Info Junkie wrote:
On 29 Mar 2005 09:24:06 -0800, wrote:
While the debate rages on, unlike the definitive genetic and physical
differences wrt race and gender, no differences are found to exist to justify
"preferntial" treament over heterosexuals.
What preferential treatment?
Addressed to the other poster wrt such issues as hiring and housing quotas.
There is no "gay gene", ergo, no
separate "class" of beings known as homosexuals, male or female, exists to
justify a "minority" status equating to those based on race or gender.
How do you explain Romer v. Evans?
I don't believe Romer v. Evans established a "gay gene" existed. :-)
OTOH, the SCOTUS ruling merely stated the State of Colorado could not withhold
equal protection against any specific group, "so long as the legislative
classification bears a rational relation to some independent and legitimate
legislative end."
In the holding in Romer v. Evans, the SCOTUS noted: "Amendment 2 goes well
beyond merely depriving them of special rights. It imposes a broad disability
upon those persons alone, forbidding them, but no others, to seek specific legal
protection from injuries caused by discrimination in a wide range of public and
private transactions." THIS is where the SCOTUS felt Amendment 2 had failed
consitutional muster, when they noted (in the holding): "Amendment 2 fails,
indeed defies, even this conventional inquiry."
Furthermore, the SCOTUS decided the issue not because the State was "...merely
depriving them of special rights", but "...imposes a broad disability upon those
persons alone...", and (in Justice Kennedy's delivery); the Amendment: "...
prohibits all legislative, executive or judicial action at any level of state or
local government designed to protect the named class, a class we shall refer to
as homosexual persons or gays and lesbians."
In Justice Kennedy's opinion, he didn't state "homosexual persons or gays and
lesbians" WERE a "class", but did so only wrt the "named class", in which is "a
class we shall refer to..." for the purposes of this ruling.
IMO, the ruling in general is in error, as such issues premises included (in the
holding), where Amendment 2 is "identifying persons by a single trait and then
denying them the possibility of protection across the board. This
disqualification of a class of persons from the right to obtain specific
protection from the law is unprecedented and is itself a denial of equal
protection in the most literal sense.".
The above comments are false, as such legislation was not "unprecedented"
(unless he was referring to Colorado alone), as at the federal level, such
federal and state(s) legislation denied blacks (physical) equal protections
UNTIL Article XIV (14th Amendment) was passed, and continued to deny women
(gender) such equal protections UNTIL Article XIX (19th Amendment) was passed.
I've no doubt that said gay proponents, like leftist-liberals, wish to retain
the "status quo" types of judical advocates that prefer to legislate-from-the-
bench in lieu of interpreting the intent of laws set down by the representatives
of the people.
These same proponents of the gay lifestyle know that any attempts to amend the
US Constitution to grant them as it did women and minorites under Amendments XIV
and XIX, protection as a "minority status" would not be acceptable in today's
society. This is shown by the failiure to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination
Act (ENDA) legislation and the passeage of the Defence of Marriage Act (DOMA)
passed. Hence their only hope is to have the courts adjudicate their position
to grant them status as a separate but equal "minority" as it recognizes other
minorities (physical) and women (gender) via Articles XIV and XIX.
There is no "difference" of gays that meets the same criteria (physical nor
gender), that exists in the broad arena of heterosexuals.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=U10179
http://www.constitution.org/col/intent_14th.txt
http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Amend.html
"...every person must be his own watchman for truth... -Justice Jackson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
02 Apr 2005 01:35:22 PM |
|
|
Info Junkie wrote:
On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 20:55:17 -0500, Josh Rosenbluth
<jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote:
Info Junkie wrote:
On 29 Mar 2005 09:24:06 -0800, wrote:
While the debate rages on, unlike the definitive genetic and physical
differences wrt race and gender, no differences are found to exist to justify
"preferntial" treament over heterosexuals.
What preferential treatment?
Addressed to the other poster wrt such issues as hiring and housing quotas.
Evidence to support your claim that gays want hiring and housing quotas?
There is no "gay gene", ergo, no
separate "class" of beings known as homosexuals, male or female, exists to
justify a "minority" status equating to those based on race or gender.
How do you explain Romer v. Evans?
I don't believe Romer v. Evans established a "gay gene" existed. :-)
OTOH, the SCOTUS ruling merely stated the State of Colorado could not withhold
equal protection against any specific group, "so long as the legislative
classification bears a rational relation to some independent and legitimate
legislative end."
Correct. Gays are afforded that protection. So, what is the rational
relation to an independent and legitimate legislative end that justifies
not allowing same-sex marriage?
In Justice Kennedy's opinion, he didn't state "homosexual persons or gays and
lesbians" WERE a "class", but did so only wrt the "named class", in which is "a
class we shall refer to..." for the purposes of this ruling.
That's preposterous. SCOTUS doesn't make rulings that apply only to the
case at hand. It establishes binding precedent for future cases.
There is no "difference" of gays that meets the same criteria (physical nor
gender), that exists in the broad arena of heterosexuals.
Per Romer, Kennedy and The Court disagree, and they have established the
law.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "Info Junkie" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
02 Apr 2005 07:42:21 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 14:35:22 -0500, Josh Rosenbluth
<jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote:
Info Junkie wrote:
On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 20:55:17 -0500, Josh Rosenbluth
<jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote:
Info Junkie wrote:
On 29 Mar 2005 09:24:06 -0800, wrote:
While the debate rages on, unlike the definitive genetic and physical
differences wrt race and gender, no differences are found to exist to justify
"preferntial" treament over heterosexuals.
What preferential treatment?
Addressed to the other poster wrt such issues as hiring and housing quotas.
Evidence to support your claim that gays want hiring and housing quotas?
I specifically said wrt "preferential" treatment; "Some of these may include
hiring and housing quotas as an example."
OTOH, why do you think some gay/lesbian groups supported the Employment
Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA)?
http://www.gaycitynews.com/gcn225/advocatestodevelop.html
http://www.pflag.org/index.php?id=274
http://www.gaycitynews.com/gcn225/advocatestodevelop.html
http://www.hrc.org/Content/ContentGroups/Issues1/Health/Housing_and_HIV_AIDS.htm
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d02878r.pdf
http://www.jeremiahproject.com/trashingamerica/enda.html
FWIW, The above URLs should be a good start wrt hiring and housing.
BTW::
"Civil Rights
The right of certain individuals not to be discriminated against in employment,
public accommodations, housing, voting, and education because of their
protected-class status."
http://www.siu.edu/~affact/glossary.html
There is no "gay gene", ergo, no
separate "class" of beings known as homosexuals, male or female, exists to
justify a "minority" status equating to those based on race or gender.
How do you explain Romer v. Evans?
I don't believe Romer v. Evans established a "gay gene" existed. :-)
OTOH, the SCOTUS ruling merely stated the State of Colorado could not withhold
equal protection against any specific group, "so long as the legislative
classification bears a rational relation to some independent and legitimate
legislative end."
Correct. Gays are afforded that protection. So, what is the rational
relation to an independent and legitimate legislative end that justifies
not allowing same-sex marriage?
Nor have I said I opposed this, but what merely provided the quote from what the
court stated.
In Justice Kennedy's opinion, he didn't state "homosexual persons or gays and
lesbians" WERE a "class", but did so only wrt the "named class", in which is "a
class we shall refer to..." for the purposes of this ruling.
That's preposterous. SCOTUS doesn't make rulings that apply only to the
case at hand. It establishes binding precedent for future cases.
Uh, maybe you haven't heard of Rule 10?
"Rule 10. Considerations Governing Review on Writ of Certiorari
"Review on a writ of certiorari is not a matter of right, but of JUDICIAL
DISCRETION". A petition for a writ of certiorari will be granted ONLY for
COMPELLING REASONS. (note: judicial discretion) The following, although
NEITHER CONTROLLING NOR fully MEASURING the Court's DISCRETION,
indicate the character of the reasons the Court considers:
(a) a United States court of appeals has entered a decision in conflict with the
decision of another United States court of appeals on the same important
matter; has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with
a decision by a state court of last resort; or has so far departed from the
accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, or sanctioned such a
departure by a lower court, as to call for an exercise of this Court's
supervisory power;
(b) a state court of last resort has decided an important federal question
in a way that conflicts with the decision of another state court of last
resort or of a United States court of appeals;
(c) a state court or a United States court of appeals has decided an
important question of federal law that has not been, but should be, settled by
this Court, or has decided an important federal question in a way that
conflicts with relevant decisions of this Court.
A petition for a writ of certiorari is RARELY GRANTED when the ASSERTED
ERROR consists of erroneous factual findings or the MISAPPLICATION OF
A properly stated RULE OF LAW. (caps emphasis mine)
(http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/supct/10.html)
There is no "difference" of gays that meets the same criteria (physical nor
gender), that exists in the broad arena of heterosexuals.
Per Romer, Kennedy and The Court disagree, and they have established the
law.
Nonsense, they only established that Colorado's Constitution went too far, and I
noted this...you snipped the relevent parts without addressing them.
"...every person must be his own watchman for truth... -Justice Jackson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
02 Apr 2005 08:34:47 PM |
|
|
Info Junkie wrote:
On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 14:35:22 -0500, Josh Rosenbluth
<jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote:
Info Junkie wrote:
Evidence to support your claim that gays want hiring and housing quotas?
I specifically said wrt "preferential" treatment; "Some of these may include
hiring and housing quotas as an example."
OTOH, why do you think some gay/lesbian groups supported the Employment
Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA)?
ENDA does not provide for quotas or any form of preferential treatment.
It provides for equal treatment.
"Civil Rights
The right of certain individuals not to be discriminated against in employment,
public accommodations, housing, voting, and education because of their
protected-class status."
http://www.siu.edu/~affact/glossary.html
Which does not imply any quotas or any form of preferential treatment.
It implies equal treatment.
In Justice Kennedy's opinion, he didn't state "homosexual persons or gays and
lesbians" WERE a "class", but did so only wrt the "named class", in which is "a
class we shall refer to..." for the purposes of this ruling.
That's preposterous. SCOTUS doesn't make rulings that apply only to the
case at hand. It establishes binding precedent for future cases.
A petition for a writ of certiorari is RARELY GRANTED when the ASSERTED
ERROR consists of erroneous factual findings or the MISAPPLICATION OF
A properly stated RULE OF LAW. (caps emphasis mine)
(http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/supct/10.html)
How does that statement support your view that gays being viewed as a
class is limited to Romer, with no precedent being set?
There is no "difference" of gays that meets the same criteria (physical nor
gender), that exists in the broad arena of heterosexuals.
Per Romer, Kennedy and The Court disagree, and they have established the
law.
Nonsense, they only established that Colorado's Constitution went too far, and I
noted this...you snipped the relevent parts without addressing them.
The Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment deals with class-based
discrimination. If homosexuality is only a behavior, and not a class,
then there can't be class-based discrimination against homosexuals, and
it would be impossible for Colorado to have gone too far. Yet, Colorado
did go too far. Therefore in the eyes of the law, gays are a class.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "Info Junkie" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
03 Apr 2005 06:39:35 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 21:34:47 -0500, Josh Rosenbluth
<jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote:
Info Junkie wrote:
On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 14:35:22 -0500, Josh Rosenbluth
<jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote:
Info Junkie wrote:
Evidence to support your claim that gays want hiring and housing quotas?
I specifically said wrt "preferential" treatment; "Some of these may include
hiring and housing quotas as an example."
OTOH, why do you think some gay/lesbian groups supported the Employment
Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA)?
ENDA does not provide for quotas or any form of preferential treatment.
It provides for equal treatment.
Passage of the ENDA legistation would have include homosexuals at the same level
as other minorities. There are quotas (though some disagree) that federal
guidelines require for "preferential" treatment be made for minorites.
"Civil Rights
The right of certain individuals not to be discriminated against in employment,
public accommodations, housing, voting, and education because of their
protected-class status."
http://www.siu.edu/~affact/glossary.html
Which does not imply any quotas or any form of preferential treatment.
It implies equal treatment.
Try reading some of the federal guidelines wrt minorities.
In Justice Kennedy's opinion, he didn't state "homosexual persons or gays and
lesbians" WERE a "class", but did so only wrt the "named class", in which is "a
class we shall refer to..." for the purposes of this ruling.
That's preposterous. SCOTUS doesn't make rulings that apply only to the
case at hand. It establishes binding precedent for future cases.
A petition for a writ of certiorari is RARELY GRANTED when the ASSERTED
ERROR consists of erroneous factual findings or the MISAPPLICATION OF
A properly stated RULE OF LAW. (caps emphasis mine)
(http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/supct/10.html)
How does that statement support your view that gays being viewed as a
class is limited to Romer, with no precedent being set?
For the simple answer: Nowhere outside of that Kennedy's singular statement, is
there a federal statute that currently defines homosexuals as a "class" equal to
the level of other minorities or women.
There is no "difference" of gays that meets the same criteria (physical nor
gender), that exists in the broad arena of heterosexuals.
Per Romer, Kennedy and The Court disagree, and they have established the
law.
Nonsense, they only established that Colorado's Constitution went too far, and I
noted this...you snipped the relevent parts without addressing them.
The Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment deals with class-based
discrimination. If homosexuality is only a behavior, and not a class,
then there can't be class-based discrimination against homosexuals, and
it would be impossible for Colorado to have gone too far. Yet, Colorado
did go too far. Therefore in the eyes of the law, gays are a class.
IYO of course, IMO, The court found the State of Colorado went too far, by
failing to allow "...the legislative classification bears a rational relation to
some independent and legitimate legislative end." In rejecting the State, the
SCOTUS found no such "legislative classification" occurred, although there are
those that desire to see it that way.
However, I suspect a great deal of lawsuits will be (have been?) filed wrt the
eleven states that have rejected gays be inclusive wrt a variety of state laws
retained for minorities, women and heterosexuals, based on what the "society" of
those states will accept in their "community".
With such a backlash from these states, the failure of ENDA and the passage of
DOMA, it's highly doubtful that a future SCOTUS will grant homosexuals a "class"
status equal to other minorities.
"...every person must be his own watchman for truth... -Justice Jackson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
03 Apr 2005 09:24:24 AM |
|
|
Info Junkie wrote:
On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 21:34:47 -0500, Josh Rosenbluth
<jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote:
Info Junkie wrote:
ENDA does not provide for quotas or any form of preferential treatment.
It provides for equal treatment.
Passage of the ENDA legistation would have include homosexuals at the same level
as other minorities. There are quotas (though some disagree) that federal
guidelines require for "preferential" treatment be made for minorites.
You are factually in error. ENDA would not permit affirmative action or
any other sort of preferential treatment for gays.
"Civil Rights
The right of certain individuals not to be discriminated against in employment,
public accommodations, housing, voting, and education because of their
protected-class status."
http://www.siu.edu/~affact/glossary.html
Which does not imply any quotas or any form of preferential treatment.
It implies equal treatment.
Try reading some of the federal guidelines wrt minorities.
You are mistaken when you claim that preferential treatment for a
minority class necessarily follows from that class getting equal
treatment. See for example Judaism as a class of people.
For the simple answer: Nowhere outside of that Kennedy's singular statement, is
there a federal statute that currently defines homosexuals as a "class" equal to
the level of other minorities or women.
SCOTUS precedent applies regardless of federal statute.
The Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment deals with class-based
discrimination. If homosexuality is only a behavior, and not a class,
then there can't be class-based discrimination against homosexuals, and
it would be impossible for Colorado to have gone too far. Yet, Colorado
did go too far. Therefore in the eyes of the la | | | | | | | |
