Why are People Homophobic?

[Sovereign Oppression]

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 discrimination. 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.

There is the ruling. It defines marriage as a fundamental right of man. However, it fails to specify the legality of certain marriages. Only that marriage is a fundamental right, and that they find it silly to not allow marriage between people of different races. Homosexuals do not have this right to marriage violated. They can marry. They can marry someone of the opposite sex.


I'm afraid homosexual marriage is currently not defined in any way as a right. Which puts it up for debate legally.

If marriage is a fundamental right of man, then by the constitution it is illegal to discriminate against anyone's access to said right.

They aren't discriminating against their access to it. Homosexuals have access to marriage. Just not marriage amongst their own sex.

[The Atlantean Menace]

If marriage is a fundamental right of man, then by the constitution it is illegal to discriminate against anyone's access to said right.

They aren't discriminating against their access to it. Homosexuals have access to marriage. Just not marriage amongst their own sex.

Technically true, although I would argue that the social context of marriage (the fact that you marry someone you LOVE) means that they are being discriminated against - they can't marry people they love, at least not in a romantic way.

[Sovereign Oppression]

They aren't discriminating against their access to it. Homosexuals have access to marriage. Just not marriage amongst their own sex.

Technically true, although I would argue that the social context of marriage (the fact that you marry someone you LOVE) means that they are being discriminated against - they can't marry people they love, at least not in a romantic way.

And I would agree. I think it's horrendous that we don't let homosexuals marry. It's obviously discrimination.

I'm simply saying that, legally, that aren't being denied rights, so it won't be that easy.

[New England and The Maritimes]

If marriage is a fundamental right of man, then by the constitution it is illegal to discriminate against anyone's access to said right.

They aren't discriminating against their access to it. Homosexuals have access to marriage. Just not marriage amongst their own sex.

Blacks had access to marriage. Just not marriage with whites.

[Galla-]

If marriage is a fundamental right of man, then by the constitution it is illegal to discriminate against anyone's access to said right.

They aren't discriminating against their access to it. Homosexuals have access to marriage. Just not marriage amongst their own sex.

They aren't discriminating against their access to it. Blacks have access to restaurants. Just not restaurants amongst whites.

[Dyakovo]

And, in fact, is so defined in the US...

Doma says fairly clearly Gay Marriage is not a federal right.

DoMA is unconstitutional.

[Sovereign Oppression]

They aren't discriminating against their access to it. Homosexuals have access to marriage. Just not marriage amongst their own sex.

Blacks had access to marriage. Just not marriage with whites.

And now marriage is not legally able to be limited by race. It is still, however, legally limited by sex.

[Dyakovo]

If marriage is a fundamental right of man, then by the constitution it is illegal to discriminate against anyone's access to said right.

They aren't discriminating against their access to it.

Yes they are.
Straight people can marry the consenting adult of their choice. Homosexual people cannot.

[New England and The Maritimes]

Blacks had access to marriage. Just not marriage with whites.

And now marriage is not legally able to be limited by race. It is still, however, legally limited by sex.

Illegally limited. It has to wind its way through the court system, but piece by piece this sham is being torn to pieces.

[Galla-]

Blacks had access to marriage. Just not marriage with whites.

And now marriage is not legally able to be limited by race. It is still, however, legally limited by sex.

Which is discrimination.

QED.

[Sovereign Oppression]

And now marriage is not legally able to be limited by race. It is still, however, legally limited by sex.

Illegally limited. It has to wind its way through the court system, but piece by piece this sham is being torn to pieces.

No, legally limited. There's no law saying they can't limit homosexual marriage. All that's been said by the courts is that marriage is an inherent right of man (this is being upheld for homosexuals) and that it can't be limited for reasons concerning race (also being upheld).

There is nothing stopping the law from limiting homosexual marriages.

[Sovereign Oppression]

And now marriage is not legally able to be limited by race. It is still, however, legally limited by sex.

Which is discrimination.

QED.

And discrimination is not illegal. Only discrimination on the account of race.

[Sovereign Oppression]

They aren't discriminating against their access to it.

Yes they are.
Straight people can marry the consenting adult of their choice. Homosexual people cannot.

Homosexuals can still marry, however. They aren't stopping them from marrying. They can tell them they can't marry other homosexuals. It's completely legal under our current laws.

[Dyakovo]

Illegally limited. It has to wind its way through the court system, but piece by piece this sham is being torn to pieces.

No, legally limited. There's no law saying they can't limit homosexual marriage. All that's been said by the courts is that marriage is an inherent right of man (this is being upheld for homosexuals) and that it can't be limited for reasons concerning race (also being upheld).

There is nothing stopping the law from limiting homosexual marriages.

Yes there is. It's called the constitution. Maybe you've heard of it?

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.

Section. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section. 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Emphasis mine.

[The Atlantean Menace]

[quote="Sovereign Oppression";p="7264046"

No, legally limited. There's no law saying they can't limit homosexual marriage. All that's been said by the courts is that marriage is an inherent right of man (this is being upheld for homosexuals) and that it can't be limited for reasons concerning race (also being upheld).
[/quote]

I would argue that the ninth amendment and several others can be safely interpreted to mean that they can't limit it.

[Dyakovo]

Yes they are.
Straight people can marry the consenting adult of their choice. Homosexual people cannot.

Homosexuals can still marry, however. They aren't stopping them from marrying. They can tell them they can't marry other homosexuals. It's completely legal under our current laws.

Apparently you've never heard of the Fourteenth Amendment...

[Clinical Technocracy]

....No. Not when my general behavior pattern stayed the same, and what felt the most true to me, whether I was surrounded by all this social engineering or not.

The thing that was my default pattern of gender behaviors was essentially unchanged no matter what else may have been there to 'influence' me. That's the point.

A t-shirt colour is decided by genes, obv.

Your smug stupidity has been decided genetically obviously.

[Sovereign Oppression]

No, legally limited. There's no law saying they can't limit homosexual marriage. All that's been said by the courts is that marriage is an inherent right of man (this is being upheld for homosexuals) and that it can't be limited for reasons concerning race (also being upheld).

There is nothing stopping the law from limiting homosexual marriages.

Yes there is. It's called the constitution. Maybe you've heard of it?

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.

Section. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section. 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Emphasis mine.

And they aren't being denied it. Constitutional. There is no law saying homosexual marriage cannot be illegal. It is, sadly, not a right in the United states at this point in time.

[New England and The Maritimes]

Illegally limited. It has to wind its way through the court system, but piece by piece this sham is being torn to pieces.

No, legally limited. There's no law saying they can't limit homosexual marriage. All that's been said by the courts is that marriage is an inherent right of man (this is being upheld for homosexuals) and that it can't be limited for reasons concerning race (also being upheld).

There is nothing stopping the law from limiting homosexual marriages.

The U.S. Constitution has been the basis of two separate rulings against DOMA clones. This is not isolated.

[Sovereign Oppression]

Homosexuals can still marry, however. They aren't stopping them from marrying. They can tell them they can't marry other homosexuals. It's completely legal under our current laws.

Apparently you've never heard of the Fourteenth Amendment...

Apparently I have, as it is being followed when homosexuals are denied marriage with one another. Their right to marriage is protected.

[Sovereign Oppression]

No, legally limited. There's no law saying they can't limit homosexual marriage. All that's been said by the courts is that marriage is an inherent right of man (this is being upheld for homosexuals) and that it can't be limited for reasons concerning race (also being upheld).

I would argue that the ninth amendment and several others can be safely interpreted to mean that they can't limit it.

Show me.

[Ethel mermania]

Doma says fairly clearly Gay Marriage is not a federal right.

DoMA is unconstitutional.

In america until the supreme court says it is not constitiutional, it is.

I believe that the supreme court would disagree with you. There is nothing in the constitution that deals with sexual orientation. Doma certainly can be repealed, but i would be surprised if the supreme court would reject it on constitutional issues.

[New England and The Maritimes]

DoMA is unconstitutional.

In america until the supreme court says it is not constitiutional, it is.

I believe that the supreme court would disagree with you. There is nothing in the constitution that deals with sexual orientation. Doma certainly can be repealed, but i would be surprised if the supreme court would reject it on constitutional issues.

SCOTUS could go either way thanks to Scalia and Thomas voting party line for cash. In the meantime, I'll throw my lot in with the legal professionals who made a laughing stock of the "Family Crusaders" in Connecticut and California.

[Dyakovo]

Yes there is. It's called the constitution. Maybe you've heard of it?

Emphasis mine.

And they aren't being denied it.¹ Constitutional. There is no law saying homosexual marriage cannot be illegal.² It is, sadly, not a right in the United states at this point in time.³

1: Yes, they are being denied it. I've explained this to you already.
2: Yes there is, you responded to the post where I showed you (a portion of) the law that makes it illegal.
3: The Supreme Court disagrees.

[Dyakovo]

Apparently you've never heard of the Fourteenth Amendment...

Apparently I have.

Obviously not.