Gay marriage issue divides Democrats

Las Vegas Review Journal ^ | 4/21/02 | JANE ANN MORRISON

[strictconstruct]

Secular benefit? I personally see this as a comfort/protection issue. There certainly is political gain and legitimacy that comes with the right to marry. The idea that my relationship with my partner is treated by the government equally to all other relationships is fulfilling in that it would eliminate a sense of second-class citizenship. This of course, has little to do with my primary interest, and the one that really matters in the big scheme of things.. the constitutional issue.
Truthfully, if I had my way, the government wouldn't get involved in the marriage/social engineering business at all, straight or gay. Realizing that this isn't going to happen, I advocate equal protection of the law, as guaranteed.

[strictconstruct]

Again, very cute and all, but this still has yet to negate the guarantee of Equal Protection. May I suggest an amendment? Watching all of you "conservatives" try to amend the Constitution without Congress or the states is really funny.

Amendment #28?
"... nor to deny any person within its jurisdiction equal protection of the laws. Except for men and women in the case of marriage."

[Piquaboy]

Would McCain and Hillary qualify as having a gay marriage?

[Verginius Rufus]

"The Constitution neither knows nor tolerates classes among its citizens." Romer v. Evans, Justice Kennedy, 1996

Justice Kennedy was simply repeating a famous line from Justice Harlan's dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson (Oct. Term, 1895):

"Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens."

[strictconstruct]

True, but he repeated it in a relevent context. Romer v Evans could be a huge clue as to where this court stands on gay rights issues. I said "could." It could be a fluke.
But the 6-3 margin, the strong language in the opinion.. it gave me hope for the future.
Harlan may have been talking about Equal Protection in reference to race there, but the Constitution doesn't limit its equality guarantee to cases of race. Again, if people want such a limit in the law, they should amend it.

[LarryLied]

Nothing unconstitutional with states setting criteria for marriage. Unless your friend Ruth Bader Ginsberg pulls more of her "living document" schtick and overturns the will of our Founders, those who amended the constitution and the will of the people. I've often wondered why Democrats call themselves Democrats. There is nothing Democratic about their party at all. Nor in favor of a constitutional republic.

[strictconstruct]

I agree with your statement: there is nothing unconstitutional about the states setting criteria for marriage. I strongly believe in states' rights, but they are limited by the Constititional guarantees.. Equal Protection, freedom of speech, etc.

It doesn't take any judicial activism ("living document") BS to conclude that one group of citizens has one set of rules [men: marry women], and another set of citizens has another [women: marry men]. It does take judicial activism to negate Equal Protection without an article in the Constitution or an amendment.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

The desire to have children is not necessarily heterosexual; that the author of this article generalizes entire populations like this points to his/her credibility.

How so? You can deny, but offer nothing else. Where's your argument?

Regardless, I don't see how your long-winded and sometimes irrelevent "post" (did you even write this yourself? ans. yes) negates Equal Protection.

Equal protection applies to individuals, not couples or groups...

Equal protection is defined as an individual right, not a collective one.

[strictconstruct]

I agree, EP goes to individuals, and I'm not arguing for couples' rights. However, groups of individuals with similar traits are allowed class action lawsuits.. ever heard of them?

It would be very easy for me to argue EP anyway..
By law, I (male) can marry women. My sister can marry men. I do not have the same right to marry men as my sister does, simply for the fact that I am male. I am discriminated against on the basis of my gender. We are treated as separate-but-equal. She is given one rule under the law, and I am given another rule under the law. Constitutionally prohibited..

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

... , I advocate equal protection of the law, as guaranteed.

For individuals or for those who are either heterosexual monogamists or for those who engage in the perversion of the human reproductive biology and/or anatomical functions?

[strictconstruct]

Again, you have created law that is not there. The Constitution does not define biological perversion, and it doesn't condition its guarantees on this basis. Its protections are for ALL citizens. Face it.. you need an amendment.

[sobieski]

THe current marriage laws do not discriminate against "homosexuals"; a "gay" man is free to marry a woman, and a heterosexual man is not able to marry another man.

[jwalsh07]

A man can't marry a man because marriage is defined as the uninon of a man and a woman. Simple really. You can draw a contract with another man if you so desire, you can even call it pallage or whatever you fancy but you can't marry a member of the same sex.

No discrimination there, you can marry, you simple have to marry a member of the opposite sex. What you do in the bedroom at that point is entirely up to you both and it is my fervent wish that you keep it there.

[strictconstruct]

Read my earlier posts ("r-e-a-d" is not a dirty word, is it?). I do not base this on orientation. I argue that men should have the same right as women. Women have the right to marry men, so men should have that right also (and reverse for women marrying women). Currently, one set of citizens is given one right, and another set of citizens another right. Everyone should play under the same rules.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

I agree, EP goes to individuals, and I'm not arguing for couples' rights. However, groups of individuals with similar traits are allowed class action lawsuits.. ever heard of them?

Don't care, it is not a related issue.

-

By law, I (male) can marry women. My sister can marry men. I do not have the same right to marry men as my sister does, simply for the fact that I am male. I am discriminated against on the basis of my gender. We are treated as separate-but-equal.

No. You are not. You have just as much a right to marry a person of the opposite sex and attempt to reproduce as much as your sister does. Human biology is the deciding factor, beyond the authority of government regulation.

[strictconstruct]

Hi walsh! Do you admit that men have one right and women have another right? You can play linguistics all you want, but they aren't treated the same.

Question: when a straight celebrity speaks of his/her marriage, do you ask them to keep it in the bedroom?

[sobieski]

I know how to reed, I went to publik skool. Just joking. All men are free to marry one woman, and all women are free to marry one man. That's marriage: one man plus one woman. Since the opportunities and limitations are the same for both gays and heterosexuals, there is no discrimination.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

A man can't marry a man because...

They cannot potentially procreate with each other...

[strictconstruct]

Human biology? Where in the Constitution does it say that? You are amending the Constitution without going through the process.. very sad.. typical of a judicial activist liberal. And you flat-out lie that I have equal rights as my sister, lol. If I did, I would have the right to marry a man, and she would have the right to marry a woman. Instead, she operates under one rule and I operate under another.

[RckyRaCoCo]

Again, if people want such a limit in the law, they should amend it.

I guess the founders did not invision that one day a society might allow itself to morally disintegrate so much as to allow their words and intent to be so twisted, and thus require such actions.