June: LBGT Pride Month, per Obama proclamation

[Leif]

I think its fair to say most politicians, Republican and Democrat, are kind of whacky when it comes to gay rights. Democrats either stop short of marriage or they dream to implement the nightmares of hate crimes and affirmative action for every make-believe minority group/victim class they can imagine. I bet most Republicans really don't care much, but must advocate for their voters. Nobody actually believes the "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman" crap anymore. It's really just code for "I hate the gays" or "I have to be loyal to my people who hate the gays".

It seems to me that a few laws need to be repealed at the federal level, then the issue needs to be left alone for states to legitimately decide (not through some silly judges who find the right to "gay marriage" somewhere in the constitution) their own policy on it. That's how America works, that's how it should work here.

[EternityEnd]

Because states should be able to individually decide how best to handle basic human rights.

inb4 Georgia officially renames blacks "niggers", cuts off their right to marriage, and reinstates slavery.

Wait a minute...

[Bingbong]

Every other month?

Feb = Black History Month
Mar = Women's History Month
Mar = Irish American Heritage Month
May = Asian Pacific Heritage Month (no shit)
May = Jewish American Heritage Month
June = Caribbean-American Heritage Month
June = LGBT Pride Month
Sep = Hispanic Heritage Month
Oct = Disabled Cultural Month
Nov = American Indian Heritage Month
Dec = Universal Human Rights Month

So, if you are a non Irish white guy, you only have January, April, July, and August to celebrate your non-Irish whiteness.

[thatwasnifty]

It's really hard to be white, isn't it?

[Dimmauk]

I think its cool that White people let other races have their own month to celebrate with Hallmark cards.

[Gregorio]

(not through some silly judges who find the right to "gay marriage" somewhere in the constitution)

Not to try to derail much, but I've seen you say similar stuff to this multiple times. The constitution doesn't grant us rights, it restricts government powers. There's a big difference...and you don't need something to be laid out saying "You have the right to do ____" in the constitution for us to have the right to do it.

[thatwasnifty]

Oh, you and your ninth amendment. Also fourteenth.

[archibaldcrane]

I do agree with Lief on hate crimes laws though. Murder is already illegal, why is it worse to murder someone because they're (insert minority group here) than murdering a person because they stepped on your sneakers in the club?

Regarding "finding imaginary constitutional rulings to allow gay marriage" - Equal Protection clauses aren't particularly difficult to apply here. Ignore "gay" for a moment: Men have the right to marry women, but women don't have that right. They do not have the same rights, they are not receiving equal protection under the law. You -can- argue that they are receiving "equivalent" rights...but that's just faulty.

When it comes down to it, from a legal standpoint, this is about gender equality more than it is about gays.

[Yuri-G]

regarding hate crime laws, it's about the motive and the viciousness of the crime. I see it as being similar to the reason manslaughter, 2nd-degree murder, and 1st-degree murder carry different sentences, even though they all are a crime wherein you killed a dude (or chick). a person who kills a man because he's homosexual in my opinion is more likely to reoffend than a person who finds his wife in bed with another man and blows her head off, thus a harsher sentence is required.

if anything, I think hate crime laws should be just be guidelines that allow for stricter sentencing if it can be proven that the crime was based on racial/sexual/etc. prejudice, just like a sentence can be much worse if you can prove that the action was premeditated. a premeditated killer is of a similar danger to society as a bigot who will allow his beliefs to influence his actions to the level of actually killing someone. and they are both more of a threat to society than a guy who got into a nasty fight with someone and killed the guy without intending to do so.

I don't really care much one way or the other though. that's just how the justification seems to work out. and it could be argued that a guy who only kills fags is less of a threat to society as a whole than a lot of other criminals, but that discussion is a whole other pandora's box of moral and ethical issues (is a serial killer who only kills prostitutes really so bad? etc.) that I ain't getting into.

[Leif]

Not to try to derail much, but I've seen you say similar stuff to this multiple times. The constitution doesn't grant us rights, it restricts government powers. There's a big difference...and you don't need something to be laid out saying "You have the right to do ____" in the constitution for us to have the right to do it.

Absolutely. There is no right to gay marriage in the constitution. I don't really talk about the constitution that much.

Because states should be able to individually decide how best to handle basic human rights.

Come on... Calling marriage a basic human right is kind of ridiculous.

Equal Protection clauses aren't particularly difficult to apply here. Ignore "gay" for a moment: Men have the right to marry women, but women don't have that right. They do not have the same rights, they are not receiving equal protection under the law. You -can- argue that they are receiving "equivalent" rights...but that's just faulty.

How about this: Everybody has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. Gay, straight, whatever. That is equal. I could go out and marry some chick right now if I wanted to. While I may be genetically programmed/touched inappropriately at an early age to play for the pink team, I can still get married to someone of the opposite sex like everybody else. I'm not willing to compromise the integrity of the constitution so some left-wing nut jobs can make up phony laws. These issues should be decided in the legislature, not through the courts.

Hate crimes legislation has been about protecting fictitious victim groups. Blacks, whites, mexicans, gays, pedophiles, whatever. When someone shoots another person, they determine his intent. Was it self defense? an accident? cold blooded murder? They dive into the "why he did it" only to determine which of these categories the crime falls under. They don't tack on an extra 10 years because he was thinking bad things. They up the charge because he intended to do more harm, for whatever reason.

Personally, I don't want to be the next victim class. My life is more than that.

[Cyn]

Pedophiles are a victim group?

Even someone as obtuse as you should be able to quote and form at least a half-witted rebuttal better than those Leif.

A couple, regardless of sexual orientation, should be entitled to the benefits of marriage. In many cases straight people can do this without even being married (common law marriage), so how is justifiable to deny gay couples these rights?

[Leif]

Pedophiles are a victim group?

According to Democrats, who chose to include child molesters and not veterans to their hate crimes bill.

Even someone as obtuse as you should be able to quote and form at least a half-witted rebuttal better than those Leif.

???

A couple, regardless of sexual orientation, should be entitled to the benefits of marriage. In many cases straight people can do this without even being married (common law marriage), so how is justifiable to deny gay couples these rights

I agree completely. However, who do you want to implement these privileges? Judges making policy by ignoring the constitution (see: Sotomayor)? Or people and the legislature allowing it to happen?

I'd rather leave intact what integrity the constitution has left and let the people decide. I think its clear which way it's going to go. I don't think it'll be long before we achieve the same result.

[pohibaba]

a person who kills a man because he's homosexual in my opinion is more likely to reoffend than a person who finds his wife in bed with another man and blows her head off, thus a harsher sentence is required.

Do we really have a right to sentence people on a preconceived notion of what they might do in the future?

a premeditated killer is of a similar danger to society as a bigot who will allow his beliefs to influence his actions to the level of actually killing someone. and they are both more of a threat to society than a guy who got into a nasty fight with someone and killed the guy without intending to do so.

But there already is a distinction in the law. If you can prove that you go into a nasty fight with someone and killed them without intending to you don't get the same penalty as someone who intended to kill someone else. The problem with hate crime laws is that with everything else being equal, people are being punished simply for the thoughts in their head when they committed the crime; it's literally punishing people for thoughts.

[archibaldcrane]

How about this: Everybody has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. Gay, straight, whatever. That is equal.

No, that can be argued to be equivalent, but it's not "equal". Men have rights (to marry women) that women don't have. Women have rights (to marry men) that men don't have. Those aren't equal rights. Argue whether equivalentcy is "good enough" if you like, fine - just acknowledge they aren't equal.

[pohibaba]

Hate crimes, Matthew Shephard, gay pride month, "I love the gays" talk, courts finding make-believe right to "gay marriage" in the consitution - all bad.

Let's all read Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment together:

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.

The important parts to this discussion are bolded.

If states give straight people the legal option to marry then they are required by the United States Constitution to give ALL of the privileges of marriage to gay people, including being recognized by every other state. Sure, they could legally do this through the process of civil unions, but that's simply unrealistic as it would require establishing an entirely new bureaucracy rather than simply changing a few words in existing laws.

What you were alluding to in your statement was "judicial activism", but in reality all they were doing was their job: defending the rights of every citizen guaranteed in the Constitution.

[archibaldcrane]

The Libertarian vs. the NeoCon. Round one...

*ding ding*

FIGHT!

[Leif]

If states give straight people the legal option to marry then they are required by the United States Constitution to give ALL of the privileges of marriage to gay people[1], including being recognized by every other state. Sure, they could legally do this through the process of civil unions, but that's simply unrealistic as it would require establishing an entirely new bureaucracy rather than simply changing a few words in existing laws[2].

Gay people do have ALL the privileges of marriage that everybody else has. Right now. Everybody can marry someone of the opposite sex, right now, even gay people. We all know this is a little silly when it is applied, because gay people simply cannot enjoy a marriage to someone of the opposite sex as a heterosexual person can. So, yes, the United States constitution does, currently, give ALL the privileges of marriage to gay people. Like everybody else, they can marry someone of the opposite sex.

[2] Sure, absolutely. However, judges can't be the ones that effectively do that.

No, that can be argued to be equivalent, but it's not "equal". Men have rights (to marry women) that women don't have. Women have rights (to marry men) that men don't have. Those aren't equal rights. Argue whether equivalency is "good enough" if you like, fine - just acknowledge they aren't equal.

Well, that is a rather complicated argument. Why do you favor separating men and women instead of going by the default terminology of "opposite sex". Everyone has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. Saying that isn't equal begs the question of whether or not you think the sexes are equal.

[hate crimes are] literally punishing people for thoughts.

Boom! Right on.

I would expand on this to say that people are being punished for thoughts that are against a certain group, defined by the left. For instance, you can't think bad things about blacks, hispanics, gays, transgenders, pedophiles, or people into beastiality. You can, however, think bad things about veterans. I mean, what ever happened to "people are just people"? What ever happened to "everyone is the same under the law"?

[pohibaba]

Gay people do have ALL the privileges of marriage that everybody else has. Right now. Everybody can marry someone of the opposite sex, right now, even gay people. We all know this is a little silly when it is applied, because gay people simply cannot enjoy a marriage to someone of the opposite sex as a heterosexual person can. So, yes, the United States constitution does, currently, give ALL the privileges of marriage to gay people. Like everybody else, they can marry someone of the opposite sex.

Are you making the argument that denying a person a right to marry the person they want to isn't denying that person a right to liberty which the Constitution protects?

[archibaldcrane]

Pohi - when you say "person" you mean consenting adult whom you are not related to or minor with parents' permission of a certain age your mileage my vary reference state laws for more info,

right?

[Leif]

Are you making the argument that denying a person a right to marry the person they want to isn't denying that person a right to liberty which the Constitution protects?

I want to marry my cat, Rusty. He's cute, orange, and I'm in love with him. Are you denying my right to marry the cat that I choose?

I mean, what about my liberty? I want to marry six women, ten men, three teenagers, four toddlers, a goat, my talking gorilla Penelope, and Rusty. Why can't I? I deserve my liberty.

I personally don't think polygamy is such a big deal for consenting adults, but I can ensure you it's not anywhere in the constitution that would allow any judge to let me do so.

Let's face it, we can't do anything we want under the umbrella of "liberty". Legitimately get it into law first, then you can do it.