Page 11 of 13 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 LastLast
Results 151 to 165 of 192

Thread: Miss California

  1. #151
    Custom Title Joesitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    20,185
    There is nothing wrong with not believeing in same-sex marriage. That is an opinion and it is based on your religion and not on the constitution that all people are created equal In effect, Miss California is saying the constitution is wrong.

    The best way for the gay haters to address this is to have the constitution amended to say most people are equal.

    For Miss California I would suggest she learn some new christan music to sing on saleable recordings, and stay clear of show biz work for obvious reasons.

  2. #152
    and... World Peace! Tonichelle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Kenai, AK
    Posts
    18,659
    is she, because the idea of "created" means there is a creator. judging by the main religion of the founders of this nation that Creator is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Their religion (be it Jewish, Muslim, or Christian) all are very firm on this subject...

    and isn't "We the people...etc" from the Declaration of Independence?

  3. #153
    Custom Title Joesitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    20,185
    Toni

    We'll argue to death on the Creation Theory. It seems to me the Founders of the Constitution were explicit in saying all people are created equal and had inalienable rights. To me, that is saying that to accept a being of alien origin from one section of the world wide sheme of things is not only questionable but out of order. The constitution was getting away from all religions that would interfere with equal rights.

    White Christians, Black Christians, Muslims Jews, and other Relgious Sects are all included in the created equal rights to leave out the Gay people is an afront to that law of the land. That is a hateful situation. To believe a group of people are not equal to others is against the Constitution.

    I feel you want to bring up the Law of God - your God - and not anyone else's as more important on equal rights than the Constiitution.

  4. #154
    Wicked Yankee Girl dorispulaski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Staring at the ocean and smiling.
    Posts
    15,254
    Yes, the founders said that...but they said it in the the Declaration of Independence.

    http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyame.../doi/text.html

    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.
    http://www.lectlaw.com/def/e027.htm

    IMO, the most important Constitutional issue about marriage hinges on the equal protection clause in the Fourteenth Amendment, not the declaration:

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitut...ndmentxiv.html

    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.
    Unless you believe that gay people are not people or not citizens, then by the 14th amendment, they are entitled to equal protection of the law. Therefore, as I see it, either the government has to remove marriage as part of its laws, (if the government feels marriage can't be equally applied to gay people), or it has to give gay people the equal protection of the marriage laws.

    The US gives a large portion of legal advantages to married heterosexual couples that it does not give to married gay couples. (A number of churches, including the Unitarian Church and the United Church of Christ perform gay marriages, as do the states of CT, MS, VT, and IA, so yes there are a lot of legally married gay couples in those 4 states, and a lot of people married in church throughout the country.) These advantages include significant monetary benefits in such things as the Earned Income Tax Credit and other federal tax advantages, as well as visitation in hospitals. At this time, there are over 1,000 rights the US preferentially gives to straight couples that it does not give to gay couples. States have some 400:

    http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bene.htm

    It does not matter what Miss California does and does not believe in, nor what people 2500 years ago believed in. What matters is what the Constitution says, and how the 9 justices of the Supreme Court interpret it. If the justices interpret that gay people are people and that gay people are citizens, then for equal protection to apply, they will be allowed to be married. In VT and IA, gay marriage became OK'd by the states exactly because those states have equal protection clauses in their state Constitutions, and the state courts upheld that right.

    If the Supreme Court does not decide that gay people are people and citizens, I wouldn't be surprised if all 1000 and some odd advantages for married people to be challenged in court, seeking for them to be invalidated, that's if the SCOTUS doesn't invalidate all of them as part of its ruling, in an attempt to have both the Equal Protection clause and discrimination against gays at the same time.

  5. #155
    L'art pour l'art Medusa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,752
    ^Great post Doris. Very rational about an emotionally charged subject.

  6. #156
    and... World Peace! Tonichelle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Kenai, AK
    Posts
    18,659
    Thank's Doris! I knew it wasn't in the Constitution!

  7. #157
    Wicked Yankee Girl dorispulaski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Staring at the ocean and smiling.
    Posts
    15,254
    BTW, a case was decided by the court, Loving vs. the State of Virginia in 1963 that many people find very similar:

    http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/proj...aw/loving.html

    The Lovings were a biracial couple that were legally married in the District of Columbia but were arrested in Virginia for being married.

    Some of the court's decision:

    This case presents a constitutional question never addressed by this Court: whether a statutory scheme adopted by the State of Virginia to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. For reasons which seem to us to reflect the central meaning of those constitutional commands, we conclude that these statutes cannot stand consistently with the Fourteenth Amendment.

    In June 1958, two residents of Virginia, Mildred Jeter, a Negro woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, were married in the District of Columbia pursuant to its laws. Shortly after their marriage, the Lovings returned to Virginia and established their marital abode in Caroline County. At the October Term, 1958, of the Circuit Court of Caroline County, a grand jury issued an indictment charging the Lovings with violating Virginia's ban on interracial marriages. On January 6, 1959, the Lovings pleaded guilty to the charge and were sentenced to one year in jail; however, the trial judge suspended the sentence for a period of 25 years on the condition that the Lovings leave the State and not return to Virginia together for 25 years.
    The Lovings moved to DC and appealed the conviction all the way to the Supreme Court, which struck down the state of Virginia law on the basis that it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

    Virginia had made laws based on their interpretation of the Bible that God had put the races on different continents and did not intend them to marry. It was also a common notion that African Americans were doomed to be inferior to whites because they were the descendants of Noah's son Ham & his son Canaan, and Noah had cursed Canaan:

    http://www.gotquestions.org/curse-Ham-Canaan.html

    So Biblical objections to another state's laws on marriage have not been particularly telling to the court. Virginia argued that the law did not discriminate against the races since both blacks and whites who intermarried were punished equally. The court did not buy that explanation at all. No similar lame, but at least plausible, grounds to say that Equal Protection isn't violated really exists for gay marriage.

    Here's more of the court's decision :

    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.

    MR. JUSTICE STEWART, concurring.

    I have previously expressed the belief that "it is simply not possible for a state law to be valid under our Constitution which makes the criminality of an act depend upon the race of the actor." Because I adhere to that belief, I concur in the judgment of the Court.
    So given that some states honor gay marriages, it's entirely possible that the court will cite Loving vs. Virginia in any decision on gay marriage (either to say how it is the same or different).

    However, I think it is clear that even Conservatives feel they are on Constitutional thin ice on this issue. Conservatives in Alaska who wanted to deny benefits to gay partners of state employees attempted to amend the state Constitution to do it. Alaska has an Equal Protection clause.

    http://www.ktuu.com/Global/story.asp?S=5843150

    Likewise, banning gay marriage in CA (previous legal) required amending the State Constitution. However, it is very easy to amend CA's constitution.

    Basically, now that homosexual relationships are legal in almost all states, gays can no longer be discriminated against as part of the class 'felons' (a class that along with children has had less rights and had that lack of rights upheld by the SCOTUS), I can't see how the Equal Protection clause would not apply to gay marriage. It would take amending the Constitution to make that not so.

    Amending the US Constitution is a far more difficult task than amending CA's, however.

  8. #158
    Forum translator Ptichka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    4,430
    Doris, this is a good argument. However, let's take it a step further. Jennifer and Jessica get married, and receive all the "legal advantages" that go along with it. Sarah and Sandie have a platonic relationship; they do not have sex, but live together, share expenses, and plan to probably live together forever. Why can't they get the same "legal advantages" as J&J (assuming they do not want to lie)?

  9. #159
    L'art pour l'art Medusa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,752
    Quote Originally Posted by Ptichka View Post
    Doris, this is a good argument. However, let's take it a step further. Jennifer and Jessica get married, and receive all the "legal advantages" that go along with it. Sarah and Sandie have a platonic relationship; they do not have sex, but live together, share expenses, and plan to probably live together forever. Why can't they get the same "legal advantages" as J&J (assuming they do not want to lie)?
    Huh? Do you have to prove that you are having sex in order to get a marriage licence? Of course Sarah and Sandie can also get married.

  10. #160
    Forum translator Ptichka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    4,430
    Medusa, I believe that while it is not the law, it is sort of "understood". However, since I cannot find anything to substantiate, let's take it one step further. Let's say that S&S are sisters. They, indeed cannot marry - anywhere in the world I believe. Why not? Why should they be "denied" those same "legal privileges"?

  11. #161
    Wicked Yankee Girl dorispulaski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Staring at the ocean and smiling.
    Posts
    15,254
    Actually this happens already. John is gay. He shares a house with Jane who is not. Since they have lived together for 7 years, Jane's workplace treats John and Jane as domestic partners here in CT, and John's health is covered by Jane's insurance.

    I actually know this couple.

  12. #162
    Forum translator Ptichka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    4,430
    Well, New England is in its own category, right ? In any case, if John & Jane where siblings, they couldn't do that. Why?

  13. #163
    Wicked Yankee Girl dorispulaski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Staring at the ocean and smiling.
    Posts
    15,254
    Actually, they can--that's how the benefits are administered at the casinos here (Foxwoods & Mohegan Sun). I just can't call to mind any siblings I know that are doing this. But John (not his name) in the example is my hairdresser. It's keyed to sharing an address for a long period of time, or marriage, whichever.

  14. #164
    Custom Title Joesitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    20,185
    Doris - Thanks for clearing up the Declaration and the Constitution.

    I just feel that there are so many posters saying indirectly that gay people are just not acceptable in the present society for equality with other ethnic groups. I believe they were brought up with that conviction by their religious training and supported by their parents. It frightens little boys and girls who have gay feelings at an early age.

    Problem with those opposed to gay marriage is that they have difficulty in expressing what their convictions are based on, and just disagree without true reasonings. Support from others is a big help in the disapproval of gay marriage. Similar cultural backgrounds, parents and those who agree is sufficient. No real reasons needed.

  15. #165
    Matt Savoie~Soul Skater CzarinaAnya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Illinois, USA
    Posts
    1,415
    Quote Originally Posted by Joesitz View Post
    There is nothing wrong with not believeing in same-sex marriage. That is an opinion and it is based on your religion and not on the constitution that all people are created equal In effect, Miss California is saying the constitution is wrong.

    The best way for the gay haters to address this is to have the constitution amended to say most people are equal.

    For Miss California I would suggest she learn some new christan music to sing on saleable recordings, and stay clear of show biz work for obvious reasons.
    I never heard someone say that gay people aren't equally human to everyone else. Of course we're created equal. It's what they're doing with their lives sexually that I believe is wrong, but that doesn't make me think any less of someone or whatever.

Page 11 of 13 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •