Gay Marriage and the Constitution

[question everything]

Cross post from the Editorial forum

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x465032

Concluding

There are those who sincerely believe that homosexuality is inconsistent with their religion -- and the First Amendment guarantees their freedom of belief. However, the same First Amendment, as well as the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses, preclude the enshrinement of their religious-based disapproval in state law. Gays and lesbians are our brothers and sisters, our teachers and doctors, our friends and neighbors, our parents and children. It is time, indeed past time, that we accord them the basic human right to marry the person they love. It is time, indeed past time, that our Constitution fulfill its promise of equal protection and due process for all citizens by now eliminating the last remnant of centuries of misguided state discrimination against gays and lesbians. The argument in favor of Proposition 8 ultimately comes down to no more than the tautological assertion that a marriage is between a man and a woman. But a slogan is not a substitute for constitutional analysis. Law is about justice, not bumper stickers.

[paulsby]

1. i 100% support gay marriage

but the idea that it is mandated constitutionally via the EPC clause is a loser imo. it's a hideous stretch. fighting bigotry is what needs to be done. opening minds. electing the right people.

[mitchtv]

2. the fact that someone may vote on my civil rights

is a hideous stretch. There are some places where a legislative fix is impossible, (AL, MS. GA. SC.OK,TN, KY, etc)

[NMMNG]

3. Now, now, dear

Get out there and beg for your rights from bigots just like everyone else has across the course of American history. Why do you think you should be so special as to be granted them by some piddly "Bill of Rights" or court action? :sarcasm:

[paulsby]

7. rule of law matters

the EPC argument is weak. it would be nice IF the constitution protected gay marriage. unfortunately, it does not.

[NMMNG]

9. The constitution in California protected same-sex marriage

Until our rights were thrown to "the will of the people".

The US Constitution could easily protect same sex marriage as it's worked previously to protect minority rights if not for the persistent kowtowing to the bigots and their enablers who scream that our rights should be subject to the whims of a popular vote.

Human rights should never be made the subject of a popular vote. They never have before in the course of American history. Nobody made women beg "the people" for their right to vote. Nobody made black people beg "the people" for the right to be free and to have civil rights. Nobody made children beg "the people" for the right to not slave in factories all day. Nobody made interracial couples beg "the people" for the right to marry.

We should not be forced to beg bigots for our rights--rights they shouldn't be able to withhold in the first place. We should not be required to convince those who see us as sub-human that we deserve what they take for granted. There is no way to "win" hearts that are hard and minds that are closed. And frankly I'm sick to death of people who keep insisting we try.

[joeybee12]

4. The only way interracial marriage bans were struck down was through the courts...

...then public opinion caught up...your argument doesn't work...it's not a loser at all, and historically you can't back that up.

[paulsby]

8. there are any # of significant differences between

interracial marriage bans and same sex marriage bans. i support same sex marriage. it is NOT protected by the constitution AS WRITTEN though. i'm all for a constitutional amendment that protects gay marriage.

[joeybee12]

10. You're really bending over backwards to try and make your ill-informed point...

...you would have to say that the equal protection clause means squat then, because it can't be applied to anything other than what was socially and culturally acceptable during the time of the revolution...you have a warped, Scalia-type view of the Cosntitution that is wrong, wrong, wrong, and dead wrong. The framers intended the Constitution to be a living, breathing, document that cuold reflect future events...any historian worth squat will tell you that.

[donco6]

5. Opening minds, electing the right people for what?

Ultimately the rights have to be recognized under the Constitution. What's wrong with now?

[TheWraith]

12. I disagree.

The EPC says that no person shall be denied equal protection of the law. In this case, gay couples get demonstrably fewer legal protections and conveniences than a straight couple in the same circumstances.

[insleeforprez]

6. I agree with the article but I have one complaint.

The one issue I have is that it posits (without argument) that sexual orientation is immutable. I certainly agree with that statement, but most of those people whom we wish to convince believe that sexuality is a choice. Moreover, one does not necessarily arrive at the conclusion--gays deserve equality--without that key assumption, based on the logic in the piece. Perhaps we do arrive at the same conclusion--religion is a choice, after all--but that is not the case they make.

It's like trying to convince a Kansas evangelical that a certain drug will work, relying on evolutionary theory as unchallenged fact. It may be logically rigorous, but it won't appear as such to the intended audience.

[gwashington2650]

11. civil rights should NOT be up for voting

If they were, blacks would still be working as slaves.