Religions > Atheism > Re: Gay Marriage Ban wins handily in all 11 states where it is on the ballot
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
12 Nov 2004 09:47:42 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Gay Marriage Ban wins handily in all 11 states where it is on the ballot |
(Info Junkie) wrote:
:|"Romer v. Evans left gays and lesbians in a categorical limbo between legally
:|protected minority and legitimate object of discrimination."
:|(http://www.missionamerica.com/oldhomo25.php)
Mission America? (grin)
:|
:|ROMER v. EVANS, ___ U.S. ___ (1996)
:|"No Protected Status Based on Homosexual, Lesbian, or Bisexual Orientation.
:|Neither the State of Colorado, through any of its branches or departments, nor
:|any of its agencies, political subdivisions, municipalities or school districts,
:|shall enact, adopt or enforce any statute, regulation, ordinance or policy
:|whereby homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or
:|relationships shall constitute or otherwise be the basis of or entitle any
:|person or class of persons to have or claim any minority status, quota
:|preferences, protected status or claim of discrimination..."
:|(http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=u10179)
:|
Romer v. Evans
No. 94-1039
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
517 U.S. 620
Argued October 10, 1995
Decided May 20, 1996
CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO
After various Colorado municipalities passed ordinances banning
discrimination based on sexual orientation in housing, employment,
education, public accommodations, health and welfare services, and other
transactions and activities, Colorado voters adopted by statewide
referendum “Amendment 2” to the State Constitution, which precludes all
legislative, executive, or judicial action at any level of state or local
government designed to protect the status of persons based on their
``homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or
relationships.'' Respondents, who include aggrieved homosexuals and
municipalities, commenced this litigation in state court against petitioner
state parties to declare Amendment 2 invalid and enjoin its enforcement.
The trial court's grant of a preliminary injunction was sustained by the
Colorado Supreme Court, which held that Amendment 2 was subject to strict
scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
because it infringed the fundamental right of gays and lesbians to
participate in the political process. On remand, the trial court found that
the Amendment failed to satisfy strict scrutiny. It enjoined Amendment 2's
enforcement, and the State Supreme Court affirmed.
Held: Amendment 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause. Pp. 4-14.
(a) The State's principal argument that Amendment 2 puts gays and lesbians
in the same position as all other persons by denying them special rights is
rejected as implausible. The extent of the change in legal status effected
by this law is evident from the authoritative construction of Colorado's
Supreme Court—which establishes that the amendment's immediate effect is to
repeal all existing statutes, regulations, ordinances, and policies of
state and local entities barring discrimination based on sexual
orientation, and that its ultimate effect is to prohibit any governmental
entity from adopting similar, or more protective, measures in the future
absent state constitutional amendment—and from a review of the terms,
structure, and operation of the ordinances that would be repealsed and
prohibited by Amendment 2. Even if, as the State contends, homosexuals can
find protection in laws and policies of general application, 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. Pp. 4-9.
(b) In order to reconcile the Fourteenth Amendment's promise that no person
shall be denied equal protection with the practical reality that most
legislation classifies for one purpose or another, the Court has stated
that it will uphold a law that neither burdens a fundamental right nor
targets a suspect class so long as the legislative classification bears a
rational relation to some independent and legitimate legislative end. See,
e.g., Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312, 319-320. Amendment 2 fails, indeed
defies, even this conventional inquiry. First, the amendment is at once too
narrow and too broad, 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. Second, the sheer breadth of
Amendment 2, which makes a general announcement that gays and lesbians
shall not have any particular protections from the law, is so far removed
from the reasons offered for it, i.e., respect for other citizens' freedom
of association, particularly landlords or employers who have personal or
religious objections to homosexuality, and the State's interest in
conserving resources to fight discrimination against other groups, that the
amendment cannot be explained by reference to those reasons; the Amendment
raises the inevitable inference that it is born of animosity toward the
class that it affects. Amendment 2 cannot be said to be directed to an
identifiable legitimate purpose or discrete objective. It is a status-based
classification of persons undertaken for its own sake, something the Equal
Protection Clause does not permit. Pp. 9-14.
882 P. 2d 1335, affirmed.
http://usa.usembassy.de/etexts/crights/scdec/romer.htm
***********************************************************************
Same Sex Marriage, Separation of Church And State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/samesex.html
**************************************************************************
Discrimination is based a person or persons being denied the rights that
others receive, and to which they too are entitled, and this denial is
based entirely on the way this person or person's are perceived to be
"different" or are in fact different then those who are not denied those
rights.
Homosexuals are discriminated against because they are homosexual, or in
many cases a person who may or may not be homosexual is perceived to be
homosexual.
The marriage laws are only one area that such takes place.
The fact is, the documented evidence showing that actual homosexuals and
people "thought" to be homosexual are discriminated against, and
discriminated against solely because they are or have been said to be
homosexual, and no other reason, is pretty tremendous. There is quite a bit
of it.
The book SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND THE LAW, says the following about
employment:
Under public employment it begins with the following:
"Gay men and lesbians face discrimination in three major areas of public
employment: Military employment, employment in jobs that require security
clearances, employment in civil service"
Under private employment it begins with the following:
"Nearly one-third of all gay men surveyed report being discriminated
against in some form on the job, and seventeen percent report having lost
or having been denied employment because they were gay. Similarity, nearly
one-quarter of lesbians surveyed report that they have been discriminated
against in the workforce. Despite this widespread discrimination, legal
protection for gay men and lesbians in the private sector remains largely
nonexistent."
At another point it states:
"No court has held that dismissals based on an employee's sexual
orientation violate public policy."
If it doesn't violate public policy it isn't illegal in essence.
(SOURCE OF LIST: SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND THE LAW, By the Editors of the
Harvard Law Review. Harvard University Press (1989)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I suppose one could go to great lengths to define each and every right that
has been legally accepted as a right in this country. Then see if any
evidence can be dug up that shows such a right has been violated with
regard to someone who is homosexual. Then go to great lengths to show that
such a right was in fact violated and the person was denied because of them
being homosexual, and then you would still say, *Nobody has convinced me
that any rights were violated* just like you used to like to use that
statement to dismiss all the arguments presented by others in the area of
School prayer, etc.
Does a person have a right to their life?
Legally speaking, YES! "Life, liberty, and...".
Yet there have been homosexuals who have had their life ripped from them,
because and only because they were homosexual
Does a person have a right to work?
Legally speaking, YES! Right to work laws have proven that fact, a person
has a right to work, and they don't have to join a union, or pay union
dues, etc., to have that right to work
There are many, many examples of Homosexuals being denied the right to
work, simply because they are homosexual
The facts are, there are many, many examples of homosexuals being
discriminated against and being discriminated against simply because of
what they are, not what they do.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FYI:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Constitutional Rights
Rights are also classified in constitutional law as natural, civil, and
political, to which there is sometimes added the class of "personal
rights."
Natural rights are those which grow out of the nature of man and depend
upon personality, as distinguished from such as are created by law and
depend upon civilized society; or they are those which are plainly assured
by natural law; or those which, by fair deduction from the present
physical, moral, social, and religious characteristics of man, he must be
invested with, and which he ought to have realized for him in a jural
society, in order to fulfill the ends to which his nature calls him. Such
are the rights of life, liberty, privacy, and good reputation.
Civil rights are such as belong to every citizen of the state or country,
or, in a wider sense, to all its inhabitants, and are not connected with
the organization or administration of government. They include the rights
of property, marriage, equal protection of the laws, freedom of contract,
trial by jury, etc. Or, as otherwise defined, civil rights are rights
appertaining to a person by virtue of his citizenship in a state or
community. Such term may also refer, in its very general
sense, to rights capable of being enforced or redressed in a civil action.
Also, a term applied to certain rights secured to citizens of the United
States by the Thirteenth and Fourteenth amendments to the Constitution, and
by various acts of Congress (e.g. Civil Rights Acts) made in pursuance
thereof. See Bill of rights; Civil liberties; Civil Rights Acts.
Political rights consist in the power to participate, directly or
indirectly, in the establishment or administration of government, such as
the right of citizenship, that of suffrage, the right to
hold public office, and the right of petition.
Personal rights is a term of rather vague import, but generally it may be
said to mean the right of personal security, comprising those of life,
limb, body, health, reputation, and the right of personal liberty.
(BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY, abridged sixth edition Centennial Edition
(1891-1991) West Publishing Co St Paul, Minn. (1991) pp 920 )
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional areas not listed above where homosexuals are routinely
discriminated against are:
The criminal justice system
Public schools
(as students)
(as members of staff or faculty)
Same-Sex couples and the law
(marry)
(private law benefits)
Family issues involving children
(custody and visitation)
(adoption and foster care)
(procreation and parenting)
Other Discrimination Issues
(immigration and deportation)
(insurance)
(incorporation and tax exemption)
(local legislation)
(public accommodations)
(SOURCE OF LIST: SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND THE LAW, By the Editors of the
Harvard Law Review. Harvard University Press (1989)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ someone else wrote ]
:|>To say that you have to be straight to be married by the government is
:|>incredibly arbitrary.
:|
[ OrionCA <orionca@earthlink.net> wrote: ]
:|So are most things required by the government. Look in the dictionary
:|under "arbitrary" and it should say something about "government".
:|
:|The fact is that government recognizes marriage between heterosexuals
:|because stable family units are seen as a benefit to society. Back
:|when this controversy flared up I began asked these groups, "What is
:|the benefit to society of recognizing homosexual marriage?" I have
:|yet to hear back on that.
[ ]
You have that somewhat incorrect.
If you are going to apply compelling interest it applies against the state,
the state has to show a compelling interest why they should not allow
something, not the other way around.
What benefits, to the state, are you claiming exist in a heterosexual civil
contractual marriage but would be absent in a same sex civil contractual
marriage?
If you can think of none, your question is irrelevant.
A benefit to society which is the wrong standard to begin with can be
answered as follows
Justice, as in equal civil rights for all not just straights.
It would move on step closer to living up to this
" We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to
secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their
just powers from the consent of the governed, . . . "
and this
Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and
of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law
which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United
States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
and this
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loving v. Virginia (1967)
http://atheism.about.com/library/decisions/privacy/bldec_LovingVA.htm
Although the State also argued that they have a valid role in regulating
marriage as a social institution, the Court rejected the notion that the
State's powers here were limitless. Instead, the Court found the
institution of marriage, while social in nature, is also a basic civil
right and cannot be restricted without very good reason:
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our
very existence and survival. (Skinner v. Oklahoma) ...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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
". . . 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. . . "
Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942)
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/skinner.html
http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/354/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
These convictions must be reversed.
LOVING v. VIRGINIA U.S. 388 U.S. 1 (1967)
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/loving.html
******************************************************************************
.
|
|
| User: "Info Junkie" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay Marriage Ban wins handily in all 11 states where it is on the ballot |
12 Nov 2004 12:14:22 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 10:47:42 -0500, wrote:
bondrock@ifx.net (Info Junkie) wrote:
:|"Romer v. Evans left gays and lesbians in a categorical limbo between legally
:|protected minority and legitimate object of discrimination."
:|(http://www.missionamerica.com/oldhomo25.php)
Mission America? (grin)
If you look closer Mr jalison (alias buckeye), you'll notice three hours prior
to your post I provided the correct URL in my response to Mr Rosebluth
(Message-ID: <4194ab19.1173704@news.ifx.net>)
OTOH, since you commented, "(grin)", without reviewing the URL above, your
application of such sarcasm Mr jalison (alias buckeye) shows your lack of
interest and intolerance of anything beyond you're own beliefs. This becomes
quite clear, as had you actually read the URL above, you would have known the
quoted information was not within the URL provided. ROTFLMHO.
:|
:|ROMER v. EVANS, ___ U.S. ___ (1996)
:|"No Protected Status Based on Homosexual, Lesbian, or Bisexual Orientation.
:|Neither the State of Colorado, through any of its branches or departments, nor
:|any of its agencies, political subdivisions, municipalities or school districts,
:|shall enact, adopt or enforce any statute, regulation, ordinance or policy
:|whereby homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or
:|relationships shall constitute or otherwise be the basis of or entitle any
:|person or class of persons to have or claim any minority status, quota
:|preferences, protected status or claim of discrimination..."
:|(http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=u10179)
:|
"snip" irrelevent material.
When reading that provided Mr jalison (alias buckeye), one should understand the
entire post in context, not just what you've selected to respond to,
out-of-context.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay Marriage Ban wins handily in all 11 states where it is on the ballot |
17 Nov 2004 10:40:29 AM |
|
|
(Info Junkie) wrote:
:|On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 10:47:42 -0500, wrote:
:|
:|> (Info Junkie) wrote:
:|>>:|"Romer v. Evans left gays and lesbians in a categorical limbo between legally
:|>>:|protected minority and legitimate object of discrimination."
:|>>:|(http://www.missionamerica.com/oldhomo25.php)
:|>
:|>Mission America? (grin)
:|
:|If you look closer Mr jalison (alias buckeye), you'll notice three hours prior
:|to your post I provided the correct URL in my response to Mr Rosebluth
:|(Message-ID: <4194ab19.1173704@news.ifx.net>)
:|
That's kewl. Glad to hear it.
Meanwhile I posted my post and your opinion or impression of it is
irrelevant to me
You posted questionable info, you didn't do your homework
:|OTOH, since you commented, "(grin)", without reviewing the URL above, your
:|application of such sarcasm Mr jalison (alias buckeye) shows your lack of
:|interest and intolerance of anything beyond you're own beliefs. This becomes
:|quite clear, as had you actually read the URL above, you would have known the
:|quoted information was not within the URL provided. ROTFLMHO.
:|
:|>>:|
:|>>:|ROMER v. EVANS, ___ U.S. ___ (1996)
:|>>:|"No Protected Status Based on Homosexual, Lesbian, or Bisexual Orientation.
:|>>:|Neither the State of Colorado, through any of its branches or departments, nor
:|>>:|any of its agencies, political subdivisions, municipalities or school districts,
:|>>:|shall enact, adopt or enforce any statute, regulation, ordinance or policy
:|>>:|whereby homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or
:|>>:|relationships shall constitute or otherwise be the basis of or entitle any
:|>>:|person or class of persons to have or claim any minority status, quota
:|>>:|preferences, protected status or claim of discrimination..."
:|>>:|(http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=u10179)
:|>>:|
:|
:|"snip" irrelevent material.
:|
:|When reading that provided Mr jalison (alias buckeye), one should understand the
:|entire post in context, not just what you've selected to respond to,
:|out-of-context.
What was posted was the holding, you know the one thing of a opinion that
really does matter.
Actually what was posted is generally called a syllabus
However, in this case that syllabus did quote the crux of the holding.
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/94-1039.ZS.html
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus
ROMER, GOVERNOR OF COLORADO, et al. v. EVANS et al.
certiorari to the supreme court of colorado
No. 94-1039. Argued October 10, 1995 -- Decided May 20, 1996
After various Colorado municipalities passed ordinances banning
discrimination based on sexual orientation in housing, employment,
education, public accommodations, health and welfare services, and other
transactions and activities, Colorado voters adopted by statewide
referendum "Amendment 2" to the State Constitution, which precludes all
legislative, executive, or judicial action at any level of state or local
government designed to protect the status of persons based on their
"homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or
relationships." Respondents, who include aggrieved homosexuals and
municipalities, commenced this litigation in state court against petitioner
state parties to declare Amendment 2 invalid and enjoin its enforcement.
The trial court's grant of a preliminary injunction was sustained by the
Colorado Supreme Court, which held that Amendment 2 was subject to strict
scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
because it infringed the fundamental right of gays and lesbians to
participate in the political process. On remand, the trial court found that
the Amendment failed to satisfy strict scrutiny. It enjoined Amendment 2's
enforcement, and the State Supreme Court affirmed.
Held: Amendment 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause. Pp. 4-14.
(a) The State's principal argument that Amendment 2 puts gays and lesbians
in the same position as all other persons by denying them special rights is
rejected as implausible. The extent of the change in legal status effected
by this law is evident from the authoritative construction of Colorado's
Supreme Court--which establishes that the amendment's immediate effect is
to repeal all existing statutes, regulations, ordinances, and policies of
state and local entities barring discrimination based on sexual
orientation, and that its ultimate effect is to prohibit any governmental
entity from adopting similar, or more protective, measures in the future
absent state constitutional amendment--and from a review of the terms,
structure, and operation of the ordinances that would be repealed and
prohibited by Amendment 2. Even if, as the State contends, homosexuals can
find protection in laws and policies of general application, 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. Pp. 4-9.
(b) In order to reconcile the Fourteenth Amendment's promise that no person
shall be denied equal protection with the practical reality that most
legislation classifies for one purpose or another, the Court has stated
that it will uphold a law that neither burdens a fundamental right nor
targets a suspect class so long as the legislative classification bears a
rational relation to some independent and legitimate legislative end. See,
e.g., Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312, 319-320. Amendment 2 fails, indeed
defies, even this conventional inquiry. First, the amendment is at once too
narrow and too broad, 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. Second, the sheer breadth of
Amendment 2, which makes a general announcement that gays and lesbians
shall not have any particular protections from the law, is so far removed
from the reasons offered for it, i.e., respect for other citizens' freedom
of association, particularly landlords or employers who have personal or
religious objections to homosexuality, and the State's interest in
conserving resources to fight discrimination against other groups, that the
amendment cannot be explained by reference to those reasons; the Amendment
raises the inevitable inference that it is born of animosity toward the
class that it affects. Amendment 2 cannot be said to be directed to an
identifiable legitimate purpose or discrete objective. It is a status based
classification of persons undertaken for its own sake, something the Equal
Protection Clause does not permit. Pp. 9-14.
882 P. 2d 1335, affirmed.
Kennedy, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Stevens,
O'Connor, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Scalia, J., filed a
dissenting opinion, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and Thomas, J., joined.
*******************************************************************************
While the syllabus is not law, it can give the overall view of the opinion
and can as it did in this case quote the actual holding of the case WHICH
IS THE LAW.
I further sugg4est befroe you go trying to explain cases that you get a
good grasp of some of the elements of a court opinion and come to
understand the various kinds of dicta.
Just a suggestion mind you.
Romer v. Evans
No. 94-1039
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
517 U.S. 620
Argued October 10, 1995
Decided May 20, 1996
Held: Amendment 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause. Pp. 4-14.
[ REPEAT, THE HOLDING:
.. Amendment 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause, and the judgment of the
Supreme Court of Colorado is affirmed. ]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://usa.usembassy.de/etexts/crights/scdec/romer.htm
***********************************************************************
Here is some more
http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/653/
Romer v. Evans
517 U.S. 620 (1996)
Docket Number: 94-1039
Abstract
Argued:
October 10, 1995
Decided:
May 20, 1996
Subjects:
Civil Rights: Liability, Misc. Civil Rights
Facts of the Case
Colorado voters adopted Amendment 2 to their State Constitution precluding
any judicial, legislative, or executive action designed to protect persons
from discrimination based on their "homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual
orientation, conduct, practices or relationships." Following a legal
challenge by homosexual and other aggrieved parties, the state trial court
entered a permanent injunction enjoining Amendment 2's enforcement. The
Colorado Supreme Court affirmed on appeal.
Question Presented
Does Amendment 2 of Colorado's State Constitution, forbidding the extension
of official protections to those who suffer discrimination due to their
sexual orientation, violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection
Clause?
Conclusion
Yes. In a 6-to-3 decision, the Court held that Amendment 2 of the Colorado
State Constitution violated the equal protection clause. Amendment 2
singled out homosexual and bisexual persons, imposing on them a broad
disability by denying them the right to seek and receive specific legal
protection from discrimination. In his opinion for the Court, Justice
Anthony Kennedy noted that oftentimes a law will be sustained under the
equal protection clause, even if it seems to disadvantage a specific group,
so long as it can be shown to "advance a legitimate government interest."
Amendment 2, by depriving persons of equal protection under the law due to
their sexual orientation failed to advance such a legitimate interest.
Justice Kennedy concluded: "If the constitutional conception of 'equal
protection of the laws' means anything, it must at the very least mean that
a bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a
legitimate governmental interest."
***************************************************************************************
and the above fits with the following:
Same Sex Marriage, Separation of Church And State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/samesex.html
**************************************************************************
Discrimination is based a person or persons being denied the rights that
others receive, and to which they too are entitled, and this denial is
based entirely on the way this person or person's are perceived to be
"different" or are in fact different then those who are not denied those
rights.
Homosexuals are discriminated against because they are homosexual, or in
many cases a person who may or may not be homosexual is perceived to be
homosexual.
The marriage laws are only one area that such takes place.
The fact is, the documented evidence showing that actual homosexuals and
people "thought" to be homosexual are discriminated against, and
discriminated against solely because they are or have been said to be
homosexual, and no other reason, is pretty tremendous. There is quite a bit
of it.
The book SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND THE LAW, says the following about
employment:
Under public employment it begins with the following:
"Gay men and lesbians face discrimination in three major areas of public
employment: Military employment, employment in jobs that require security
clearances, employment in civil service"
Under private employment it begins with the following:
"Nearly one-third of all gay men surveyed report being discriminated
against in some form on the job, and seventeen percent report having lost
or having been denied employment because they were gay. Similarity, nearly
one-quarter of lesbians surveyed report that they have been discriminated
against in the workforce. Despite this widespread discrimination, legal
protection for gay men and lesbians in the private sector remains largely
nonexistent."
At another point it states:
"No court has held that dismissals based on an employee's sexual
orientation violate public policy."
If it doesn't violate public policy it isn't illegal in essence.
(SOURCE OF LIST: SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND THE LAW, By the Editors of the
Harvard Law Review. Harvard University Press (1989)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I suppose one could go to great lengths to define each and every right that
has been legally accepted as a right in this country. Then see if any
evidence can be dug up that shows such a right has been violated with
regard to someone who is homosexual. Then go to great lengths to show that
such a right was in fact violated and the person was denied because of them
being homosexual, and then you would still say, *Nobody has convinced me
that any rights were violated* just like you used to like to use that
statement to dismiss all the arguments presented by others in the area of
School prayer, etc.
Does a person have a right to their life?
Legally speaking, YES! "Life, liberty, and...".
Yet there have been homosexuals who have had their life ripped from them,
because and only because they were homosexual
Does a person have a right to work?
Legally speaking, YES! Right to work laws have proven that fact, a person
has a right to work, and they don't have to join a union, or pay union
dues, etc., to have that right to work
There are many, many examples of Homosexuals being denied the right to
work, simply because they are homosexual
The facts are, there are many, many examples of homosexuals being
discriminated against and being discriminated against simply because of
what they are, not what they do.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FYI:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Constitutional Rights
Rights are also classified in constitutional law as natural, civil, and
political, to which there is sometimes added the class of "personal
rights."
Natural rights are those which grow out of the nature of man and depend
upon personality, as distinguished from such as are created by law and
depend upon civilized society; or they are those which are plainly assured
by natural law; or those which, by fair deduction from the present
physical, moral, social, and religious characteristics of man, he must be
invested with, and which he ought to have realized for him in a jural
society, in order to fulfill the ends to which his nature calls him. Such
are the rights of life, liberty, privacy, and good reputation.
Civil rights are such as belong to every citizen of the state or country,
or, in a wider sense, to all its inhabitants, and are not connected with
the organization or administration of government. They include the rights
of property, marriage, equal protection of the laws, freedom of contract,
trial by jury, etc. Or, as otherwise defined, civil rights are rights
appertaining to a person by virtue of his citizenship in a state or
community. Such term may also refer, in its very general
sense, to rights capable of being enforced or redressed in a civil action.
Also, a term applied to certain rights secured to citizens of the United
States by the Thirteenth and Fourteenth amendments to the Constitution, and
by various acts of Congress (e.g. Civil Rights Acts) made in pursuance
thereof. See Bill of rights; Civil liberties; Civil Rights Acts.
Political rights consist in the power to participate, directly or
indirectly, in the establishment or administration of government, such as
the right of citizenship, that of suffrage, the right to
hold public office, and the right of petition.
Personal rights is a term of rather vague import, but generally it may be
said to mean the right of personal security, comprising those of life,
limb, body, health, reputation, and the right of personal liberty.
(BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY, abridged sixth edition Centennial Edition
(1891-1991) West Publishing Co St Paul, Minn. (1991) pp 920 )
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional areas not listed above where homosexuals are routinely
discriminated against are:
The criminal justice system
Public schools
(as students)
(as members of staff or faculty)
Same-Sex couples and the law
(marry)
(private law benefits)
Family issues involving children
(custody and visitation)
(adoption and foster care)
(procreation and parenting)
Other Discrimination Issues
(immigration and deportation)
(insurance)
(incorporation and tax exemption)
(local legislation)
(public accommodations)
(SOURCE OF LIST: SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND THE LAW, By the Editors of the
Harvard Law Review. Harvard University Press (1989)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ someone else wrote ]
:|>To say that you have to be straight to be married by the government is
:|>incredibly arbitrary.
:|
[ OrionCA <orionca@earthlink.net> wrote: ]
:|So are most things required by the government. Look in the dictionary
:|under "arbitrary" and it should say something about "government".
:|
:|The fact is that government recognizes marriage between heterosexuals
:|because stable family units are seen as a benefit to society. Back
:|when this controversy flared up I began asked these groups, "What is
:|the benefit to society of recognizing homosexual marriage?" I have
:|yet to hear back on that.
[ ]
You have that somewhat incorrect.
If you are going to apply compelling interest it applies against the state,
the state has to show a compelling interest why they should not allow
something, not the other way around.
What benefits, to the state, are you claiming exist in a heterosexual civil
contractual marriage but would be absent in a same sex civil contractual
marriage?
If you can think of none, your question is irrelevant.
A benefit to society which is the wrong standard to begin with can be
answered as follows
Justice, as in equal civil rights for all not just straights.
It would move on step closer to living up to this
" We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to
secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their
just powers from the consent of the governed, . . . "
and this
Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and
of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law
which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United
States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
and this
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loving v. Virginia (1967)
http://atheism.about.com/library/decisions/privacy/bldec_LovingVA.htm
Although the State also argued that they have a valid role in regulating
marriage as a social institution, the Court rejected the notion that the
State's powers here were limitless. Instead, the Court found the
institution of marriage, while social in nature, is also a basic civil
right and cannot be restricted without very good reason:
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our
very existence and survival. (Skinner v. Oklahoma) ...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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
". . . 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. . . "
Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942)
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/skinner.html
http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/354/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
These convictions must be reversed.
LOVING v. VIRGINIA U.S. 388 U.S. 1 (1967)
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/loving.html
******************************************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Info Junkie" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay Marriage Ban wins handily in all 11 states where it is on the ballot |
12 Nov 2004 12:28:28 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 18:14:22 GMT, (Info Junkie) wrote:
(typos - grrr)
If you look closer Mr jalison (alias buckeye), you'll notice three hours prior
to your post I provided the correct URL in my response to Mr Rosebluth
(Message-ID: <4194ab19.1173704@news.ifx.net>)
Mr Rosenbluth, please accept my apology for typing your name incorrectly.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
