Homosexual Marriage ban. Constitutional violation?

[Ostroeuropa]

Actually that would be the American Declaration of Independence.

Which isn't a legally binding document.

It isn't?
Hot dayum come on boys we're re-annexing th-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Paris_(1783)
Oh... nevermind, back to the golf course.

[Samuraikoku]

Actually that would be the American Declaration of Independence.

Which isn't a legally binding document.

No, but that doesn't prevent it from setting the principles in which legally binding texts should be made.

[Neo Art]

What? no, no it's not!

"BUT GOD! MARRIAGE IS RELIGIOUS! STD'S! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!"


I can't wait until Generation Y takes over.

I'm truly baffled as to the point you think you're making here. Do you really feel that pointing out that what you think is the CotUSA is really the DoA means I believe that "god hates fags"?

People can agree with you while still pointing out that your arguments are bad. Stop helping, you're just making things worse.

[Divair]

First of all,

CotUSA is really the DoA

Did not know this.

I'm truly baffled as to the point you think you're making here. Do you really feel that pointing out that what you think is the CotUSA is really the DoA means I believe that "god hates fags"?

Second of all, no, it wasn't directed at you, I already know your username and that you're not that kind of person.

People can agree with you while still pointing out that your arguments are bad. Stop helping, you're just making things worse.

Fine. Bye.

[Raeyh]

Which isn't a legally binding document.

No, but that doesn't prevent it from setting the principles in which legally binding texts should be made.

What does right to peruse happiness even mean, legally? That I can do whatever I want to get my jollies? They should have gone with the original saying life, liberty, and property. That makes more sense.

[Neo Art]

CotUSA is really the DoA

Did not know this.

Really? This is what you think of as "clever"?

I'm truly baffled as to the point you think you're making here. Do you really feel that pointing out that what you think is the CotUSA is really the DoA means I believe that "god hates fags"?

Second of all, no, it wasn't directed at you, I already know your username and that you're not that kind of person.

Then why in the world did you say it when replying to me?

[Divair]

Really? This is what you think of as "clever"?

No. Admitting a mistake is some kind of way of making myself seem clever now? Should I have debated a point that was wrong?

Then why in the world did you say it when replying to me?

Because I did not know the above, I assumed you were parodying extreme religious people who tend to over-exaggerate the effect legalization of same sex marriage has on society.

[Samuraikoku]

What does right to peruse happiness even mean, legally? That I can do whatever I want to get my jollies? The should have gone with the original saying life, liberty, and property. That makes more sense.

It means nothing legally, but that's the thing. The Declaration of Independence, while not legal, is philosophical. And I believe that the right to pursue happiness means that you can do whatever you want to get your jollies as long as you're not violating anyone else's right (to life, liberty, property, personal integrity, or any other rights recognized to them by the law).

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

If marriage is between "one man and one woman" rather than "one male and one female," shouldn't that mean that a marriage between a trans-gender bio-male and a cis-gender bio-male would already be legal?

Don't think the Paulinist fundies were counting on this one...

[Divair]

What does right to peruse happiness even mean, legally? That I can do whatever I want to get my jollies? The should have gone with the original saying life, liberty, and property. That makes more sense.

It means nothing legally, but that's the thing. The Declaration of Independence, while not legal, is philosophical. And I believe that the right to pursue happiness means that you can do whatever you want to get your jollies as long as you're not violating anyone else's right (to life, liberty, property, personal integrity, or any other rights recognized to them by the law).

"Your liberty to swing your fist ends where my nose begins" kind of thing.

[Samuraikoku]

If marriage is between "one man and one woman" rather than "one male and one female," shouldn't that mean that a marriage between a trans-gender bio-male and a cis-gender bio-male would already be legal?

Don't think the Paulinist fundies were counting on this one...

They'd tell you that trans-gender male is bio-male anyway, I'd reckon. (DISCLAIMER: This does not reflect my actual opinion on the matter).

[Neo Art]

No. Admitting a mistake is some kind of way of making myself seem clever now? Should I have debated a point that was wrong?

We are perhaps talking at cross purposes. The way you snipped my quote, it appeared that you were quoting me as saying, literally "the constitution and the declaration are the same thing" (which was the opposite of my point) and then providing a "oh really, I didn't know that" sarcastic response.

Which, selective editing to make someone seem like they're saying the exact opposite of their point, then getting all snarky about it, is a rather lowbrow form of humor. If you meant otherwise, apologies for the misconception.

Because I did not know the above, I assumed you were parodying extreme religious people who tend to over-exaggerate the effect legalization of same sex marriage has on society.

It's just...ok, here's the thing. You see, I'm this thing called a "lawyer". As a "lawyer" I went to this place called "law school" where I studied this kinda thing. for three years. I've since continued my legal education through my career. I've been extraordinarily active on the issue of gay rights. I was on the student committee that drafted the amicus brief that was submitted to the Massachusetts SJC which was subsequently cited in Goodridge (the first case legalizing same sex marriage in the nation). I'm a member and advisor for GLAD (gay and lesbian advocates and defenders). I've been involved in this particular fight for nearly a decade.

There are valid, legitimate arguments to be made regarding the unconstitutionality of same-sex marriage bans. They are, like most arguments of constitutional jurisprudence very fucking complicated. These are the things that people like me do. So when people show up and claim, with a straight face "it's obviously unconstitutional due to the part that says everyone has a right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness", I get a little disgruntled.

The battles that have been won in the courts have been long, and they've been slow, and they've been hard. And they've been won by actual professionals, with a real, true understanding of constitutional case law, who have put in those hours, those efforts, who have used their knowledge, their training to good use.

So pointing out your argument is bad, doesn't mean I support the opposite. I don't. I just know the good arguments from the bad ones. And it's not nearly so easy as some people seem to think it is.

[Divair]

We are perhaps talking at cross purposes. The way you snipped my quote, it appeared that you were quoting me as saying, literally "the constitution and the declaration are the same thing" (which was the opposite of my point) and then providing a "oh really, I didn't know that" sarcastic response.

Which, selective editing to make someone seem like they're saying the exact opposite of their point, then getting all snarky about it, is a rather lowbrow form of humor. If you meant otherwise, apologies for the misconception.

It wasn't a sarcastic response. I have not studied US legislation in depth (yet), so I didn't know it was part of the DoA, not the Constitution.

-snip-

I see.

[Shadowlandistan]

It has already been done before in interracial marriages. It should, by analogy, take a new precedent for same-sex marriage.

Exactly. The constitution can only guarantee rights, not take them away. This is how it was designed.

[Grenartia]

It's as simple as this.

What? no, no it's not!

Please, explain.

Actually that would be the American Declaration of Independence.

Which isn't a legally binding document.

No, but it does provide a basic list of rights inherent to all people. Said rights, if not explicitly guaranteed under the Bill of Rights, can be implied to exist under protection of the 9th Amendment. Which, the last time I checked, was a legally binding document.

No, but that doesn't prevent it from setting the principles in which legally binding texts should be made.

What does right to peruse happiness even mean, legally? That I can do whatever I want to get my jollies? They should have gone with the original saying life, liberty, and property. That makes more sense.

Pursue, not peruse. In theory, as I understand, it means you have the right to do whatever makes you happy (within reason, as the right to pursue happiness does not and should not, for obvious reasons, entail the right to deprive others of their rights).

I don't konw what the exact diference between 'pursuit of happiness' and 'liberty' is, but I'd imagine there is one. Likewise, I'm not sure why property was left out in favor of 'pursuit of happiness', but I'm fairly sure there's got to be a rational explanation.

If marriage is between "one man and one woman" rather than "one male and one female," shouldn't that mean that a marriage between a trans-gender bio-male and a cis-gender bio-male would already be legal?

Don't think the Paulinist fundies were counting on this one...

You see, there are inherent problems with this hole you've poked in their logic.

First of all, as I recall, in order to have one's sex (which is what they go by, not gender) legally changed, one must have sex reassignment surgery. Thanks to certain guidelines in the medical community, most of the time, in order for one to have SRS, one must fulfill certain requirements, including, but not limited to: living as one's target gender for at least one year (most of the time, IIRC, this is much more than a year, due to the fact that most insurance does not cover SRS, as it is deemed an 'elective proceedure', and SRS is not cheap. This is further exasperated by the fact that it is extremely hard for transgendered people to get a job, especially if they have a hard time passing as their target gender, making meaningful, gainful employment to pay for SRS a near impossibility, outside of the sex trade), taking hormones, and being diagnosed with GID. This means that for all legal intents and purposes, even if an MtF seeking to marry a cis-gendered man is on hormones and is expressing herself as female, she is not a female, and the marriage won't be recognized (assuming of course the jurisdiction is in a state that has not legalized SSM).

Secondly, the problem described above will be hard, if not impossible to rectify, as the guidelines, though rather restrictive, do have a rather legitimate reason for existence. Also, it will be nigh impossible to get any state where SSM is not recognized to reduce the requirements for a legal change of sex to merely being diagnosed with GID (if anybody thinks that a state like Tennessee would do such a thing, then I must question exactly what reality they come from). You see, most people, based on my observations, think of transgendered individuals as either the sex they were born as/lived as prior to beginning transition, or as neither a man nor a woman (which in some cases, is true, but not necessarily always). This isn't due to hatred (for the most part), as the people in question are (usually) very LGBT tolerant, but rather due to ignorance. Removing this ignorance from society takes time. A lot of it. But its a hell of a lot easier and quicker than removing the hatred, which is often the driving force behind the fundies' opposition of LGBT rights.

I'm not even going to attempt to refute the 'paulinist' thing, as such an action makes me feel like a broken record.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

It takes more than a mere majority to override the Constitution. It takes 2/3rds of Congress and 75% of state legislatures.

Or Chuck Norris.

A power even Chuck would use only in the most dire of emergencies for fear of angering Leroy Jethro Gibbs. *nod*

[Northern Dominus]

It has already been done before in interracial marriages. It should, by analogy, take a new precedent for same-sex marriage.

End-all for the argument right there. The same bass-ackwards religious principles used to justify jim crow laws and outlaw interracial marriages are being applied to LGBT citizens and undermining their rights in violation of constitutional principles.

And here's the really sad part. The same mostly-black evangelical baptist congregations, you know the ones that like to crow about how churches "just like theirs" were integral to the civil rights movement when it focused on equality for African-Americans have turned their backs on that same movement now that it's being applied to the LGBT minority of this country.

Hypocrisy, thy name is inner city baptist church.

[Smiil]

So this has been on my mind for a very long time, I am a supporter of the homosexual community, and many of my family members, and friends are homosexual in nature. So through legal studies as a kid during my high school and middle school years, I have been researching, and investigating. I wanted to bring it to nation states to some of the better debate groups on the internet.

So my case is a simple stature of the following;

In the bill of rights (the first ten amendments to the constitution), it states there should be freedom of religion, and all that babble, we all know it and mostly understand it. Though, everytime I hear about the homosexual issue come up, I hear politicians, major news groups, and others pick a side towards the bible. Though times are changing rapidly towards the view of homosexual marriage, there is still a bible christianty bias in the United States.

Therefore in my arguement, is it illegal for any state, or even the United States government based on behalf of their constitution by their fore-fathers to make Homosexual Marriage illegal, when Marriage is legalized and administered by the state?

Is it a crime for the government to keep this issue illegal?

My point is that the constution even states a freedom of religion, and etc, etc, etc. So when you base your opinion, and even in many court cases it has been proven that the separation of church and state is prominant, on this issue, why is that still the case? My home state, Maine is putting this issue on the ballot, and with a large elderly community and anti-homosexual community in the state, this bill will likely pass by a short margine, or fail in a tie.

My final question is, can someone gain support and take legal action in a law suit against a state for violation of constitutional rights?

well I have argued this once before, but I will do it again. Just before you call me a bibel reading freak hear me out.

1) Nowhere in the constitution is it written that gay marriage is baned.
2) nowhere in any laws is it written that gay marriage us baned.
3) we need a law that defines what marriage is.

Most US states define marriage as something a man and a woman do. Just as the all humans define shoes to be something that you can put on your feet. There is no ban for people withoute feet to wear shoes, and there is no ban for two men or women to marry, it is simply defiend as on man and one woman. Personaly I suport the right for same sex marriages, but from a juridical point of view since there is no ban there can not be a constitutional violation

[Northern Dominus]

So this has been on my mind for a very long time, I am a supporter of the homosexual community, and many of my family members, and friends are homosexual in nature. So through legal studies as a kid during my high school and middle school years, I have been researching, and investigating. I wanted to bring it to nation states to some of the better debate groups on the internet.

So my case is a simple stature of the following;

In the bill of rights (the first ten amendments to the constitution), it states there should be freedom of religion, and all that babble, we all know it and mostly understand it. Though, everytime I hear about the homosexual issue come up, I hear politicians, major news groups, and others pick a side towards the bible. Though times are changing rapidly towards the view of homosexual marriage, there is still a bible christianty bias in the United States.

Therefore in my arguement, is it illegal for any state, or even the United States government based on behalf of their constitution by their fore-fathers to make Homosexual Marriage illegal, when Marriage is legalized and administered by the state?

Is it a crime for the government to keep this issue illegal?

My point is that the constution even states a freedom of religion, and etc, etc, etc. So when you base your opinion, and even in many court cases it has been proven that the separation of church and state is prominant, on this issue, why is that still the case? My home state, Maine is putting this issue on the ballot, and with a large elderly community and anti-homosexual community in the state, this bill will likely pass by a short margine, or fail in a tie.

My final question is, can someone gain support and take legal action in a law suit against a state for violation of constitutional rights?

well I have argued this once before, but I will do it again. Just before you call me a bibel reading freak hear me out.

1) Nowhere in the constitution is it written that gay marriage is baned.
2) nowhere in any laws is it written that gay marriage us baned.
3) we need a law that defines what marriage is.

Most US states define marriage as something a man and a woman do. Just as the all humans define shoes to be something that you can put on your feet. There is no ban for people withoute feet to wear shoes, and there is no ban for two men or women to marry, it is simply defiend as on man and one woman. Personaly I suport the right for same sex marriages, but from a juridical point of view since there is no ban there can not be a constitutional violation

But again, Samu pointed out that there's supreme court precedence already in place. Interracial marraiges are proteced under law since 1967 after Pace V Alabama was overturned, so what possible logic that isn't religious or based upon precedents that violate any part of the civil rights act could the states possibly use to justify denying marriage rights to LGBT citizens?

[Phaedrus Imperator]

It takes more than a mere majority to override the Constitution. It takes 2/3rds of Congress and 75% of state legislatures.

Or Chuck Norris.

Actually, Chuck Norris is anti-gay marriage.
I'm sorry, but Chuck's falling from grace, and fast.

[Smiil]

But again, Samu pointed out that there's supreme court precedence already in place. Interracial marraiges are proteced under law since 1967 after Pace V Alabama was overturned, so what possible logic that isn't religious or based upon precedents that violate any part of the civil rights act could the states possibly use to justify denying marriage rights to LGBT citizens?

to many difficult words but if you wonder there are some key differences. First off from the ruling

"Marriage is (...) fundamental to our very existence and survival.." This defines marriage to be for our survival, two men is not essential to our survival

"The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination"
again they take into account racial classifications nothing else

I hope the will be a "free marriage act" that allows same sex marriage, but I think there will have to be a new supreme ruling to get there

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

What? no, no it's not!

Please, explain.

Which isn't a legally binding document.

No, but it does provide a basic list of rights inherent to all people. Said rights, if not explicitly guaranteed under the Bill of Rights, can be implied to exist under protection of the 9th Amendment. Which, the last time I checked, was a legally binding document.

What does right to peruse happiness even mean, legally? That I can do whatever I want to get my jollies? They should have gone with the original saying life, liberty, and property. That makes more sense.

Pursue, not peruse. In theory, as I understand, it means you have the right to do whatever makes you happy (within reason, as the right to pursue happiness does not and should not, for obvious reasons, entail the right to deprive others of their rights).

I don't konw what the exact diference between 'pursuit of happiness' and 'liberty' is, but I'd imagine there is one. Likewise, I'm not sure why property was left out in favor of 'pursuit of happiness', but I'm fairly sure there's got to be a rational explanation.

If marriage is between "one man and one woman" rather than "one male and one female," shouldn't that mean that a marriage between a trans-gender bio-male and a cis-gender bio-male would already be legal?

Don't think the Paulinist fundies were counting on this one...

You see, there are inherent problems with this hole you've poked in their logic.

First of all, as I recall, in order to have one's sex (which is what they go by, not gender)

That's kind of...my point.

Obviously their intent is to prohibit same-sex marriages. However, by using the wording "one man and woman" they're actually prohibiting same-gender marriages.

The law won't ever be interpreted that way because it's pretty clear what they meant.

But it's a pretty ironic statement that they can't even figure out how to word it properly.

[SaintB]

What does right to peruse happiness even mean, legally?

It means you can window shop at the happiness store without being charged with loitering.

But remember if you find a happiness you like that they don't accept money so you need to make sure you brought something to trade.

[Grenartia]

Please, explain.



No, but it does provide a basic list of rights inherent to all people. Said rights, if not explicitly guaranteed under the Bill of Rights, can be implied to exist under protection of the 9th Amendment. Which, the last time I checked, was a legally binding document.



Pursue, not peruse. In theory, as I understand, it means you have the right to do whatever makes you happy (within reason, as the right to pursue happiness does not and should not, for obvious reasons, entail the right to deprive others of their rights).

I don't konw what the exact diference between 'pursuit of happiness' and 'liberty' is, but I'd imagine there is one. Likewise, I'm not sure why property was left out in favor of 'pursuit of happiness', but I'm fairly sure there's got to be a rational explanation.



You see, there are inherent problems with this hole you've poked in their logic.

First of all, as I recall, in order to have one's sex (which is what they go by, not gender)

That's kind of...my point.

Obviously their intent is to prohibit same-sex marriages. However, by using the wording "one man and woman" they're actually prohibiting same-gender marriages.

The law won't ever be interpreted that way because it's pretty clear what they meant.

But it's a pretty ironic statement that they can't even figure out how to word it properly.

Well, it does make a little bit of sense when one thinks about it.

These people suffer from the misconception that sex = gender. Its not so easily remedied in some people.

[Zephie]

no gay marriage is not a constitutional violation, lol