Instead of just agitating for marriage equality ...

[Meeker Morgan]

... we should be agitating for something like the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

That would cover marriage inequality and many other abuses as well, without having to go after our rights piecemeal as we are doing now.

What do you all say?

[mestup]

1. I've been WAITING for the gay community to ask this question!

As a hetero, I'm flabbergasted by the lack of debate in the gay community concerning the CorpMedia marginalizing of the very rights they seek.

It's dangerous to let a debate about the full protection of equal rights disintegrate into something as crass as "it's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve."

As if the definition of "legal marriage" can possibly solve all the problems gays face! Smoke and Mirrors.

[nofurylike]

3. might you, "as a hetero," not know what we debate? it is all there in our

long, exhausted story.

i do appreciate your earnest concern, though, mestup!
thank you.


peace!

[nofurylike]

2. i'm sorry, but you have it backwards. please research the history of

our struggle.

have you ever noticed how one place by one tiny other place by some bigger places add "sexual orientation" to their statements against discrimination? that is because it started with our including it there, more than thirty years ago, after more broad - often violent - struggle for years before that.
every one of those places you see that took massive organizing and struggle, people devoting their lives...

then came legal statutes acknowledging rights, because...

well, what would you call your suggested version? lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgendered/transexual/two-spirit/questioning/confused equal rights amendment?
queer rights amendment?

we ARE covered by THE equal rights amendment. that is what the individual hard-fought statutes and litigations are to assert.

thank you.


peace!

[Meeker Morgan]

4. What has been so far is OK ...

... but unlike the original civil rights struggle, we have the 1964 precedent.

I suggest something simple like "The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is hereby amended to include sexual orientation".

Yes we are already covered by the 14th amendment, but then so were Blacks.

[nofurylike]

5. interesting proposal, really. all of the local and state statutes and

lawsuits are to enforce that we are included in People. when this country wouldn't let a specific women's equal rights amendment be ratified, they used the premise that we are inherently included in "all men" meaning all persons.

then, we had to fight specific economic inequities.

for us lgbttt-sqc's, it has been necessary to fight specific economic discrimination, in jobs, housing, marriage, and so on. we were headed toward such major changes as you recommend, when this reactionary crash happened and many of the individual statutes started being taken back away. more have also been passed, too.

still, it might be interesting to set out to find a legislator who would take on introducing an amedment with the very wording you suggest.
i fear it would cause us to be set upon worse than ever, in this day and age. but why not see what happens?

i'll be here listening for progress!

thank you for discussing this, Meeker Morgan.


peace!

[TaleWgnDg]

8. Yes, it would be great if the Civil Rights Act of 1964 included . . .

.
Yes, it would be great if the Civil Rights Act of 1964 expressly included . . . "sexual orientation."

However, still better would be an amendment to our federal constitution that expressly granted full constitutional protection including equal protection, due process, and privileges and immunities on the basis on sexual orientation. Having the words expressly stated in our federal constitution would cement it for all time. Otherwise, if it were merely a federal law and not express in our constitution, then it would be left up to the vicissitudes and vagaries of politics in congress, which as we have seen these past 30 years has been leaning rightwing and unfavorable to progressivism, as well as SCOTUS who may be all too willing not to allow such federal laws.

As for the 14th amendment's equal protection clause and the due process clauses w/i the constitution, please see my post #6 in this DU/GLBT thread.

I typically don't "debate" legal issues in layppl's msg boards; however, the error was so blatant and misinformed, I felt it necessary to correct it.


.

[nofurylike]

12. and i avoid trying to reach those whose privileges cost conformity. bye.

[TaleWgnDg]

6. Uuummmm, no. Homosexuals are NOT protected in our

.
Uuummmm, no. Homosexuals are NOT protected in our federal constitution. There are no express words in our federal constitution that grant anti-discrimination status on the basis of sexual orientation. No where. Nada. Zero. Zip.

You mentioned the 14th amendment equal protection clause as a protection on the basis of sexual orientation. It does not. It never has. Why is this so? Because SCOTUS case law (stare decisis) indicates that only groups of individuals who share immutable characteristics are granted equal protection u/ the 14th amendment equal protection clause. And, so far medical science comes up w/ a blank as to sexual orientation.

In other words, until medical science indicates and SCOTUS accepts and opines that sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic, i.e., that it is genetic and unchangeable, then there remains no equal protection on the basis of sexual orientation u/ the 14th amendment of our federal constitution.

As for the due process clauses in the federal constitution, it may render some assistance; however, again, there is no express words that demands due process on the basis of sexual orientation for individuals.

If there were equal protection and due process rights express in our federal constitution re sexual orientation, then same-sex marriage would be a non-issue. Same-sex marriage WOULD be granted, as would all rights, privileges and immunities be granted on the basis of sexual orientation. Yes, GLBTs would have no further legal problems as to their rights, privileges and immunities both in federal law and in all states laws. They would be treated the same all over America; if not, then GLBTs would have the best legal means to challenge any violators of those rights.

This is basic constitutional law, first year law school. It is more esoteric than what I have stated here; however, I've narrowed it down to the bare bones so as to not make it confusing.

.

[nofurylike]

7. actually, that is an after-effect of discrimination against us as people.

it is not our orientation that causes us to need protection. it is discriminatory withholding of our legal people's rights that causes it.
that withholding is illegal, period.

we ARE covered as people.

it is prejudice against an aspect of us that has nothing to do with our ability to do equal things, that calls forth the need to be protected, NOT as lgbt..., but as people.

even in the case of marriage, people got it wrong. the law said each person has the right to marry the person of her/his choice, within the law, which hadn't yet started banning our unions by law.

it compares with specific protection of the disabled in that it is protection against others' arbitrary withholding of peoples' general rights.

i do, though, acknowledge that conservatives have shrewdly framed the debate in the way you are saying, and that has given them increased legal leverage. but i do hope WE will not adopt that framing. our doing so as much as we already have has allowed those misinterpretations of law to be further ingrained in popular perception.

that is to say, they know well how to keep us runnin'.


peace!

(i have to go for now, but will check back tomorrow night to continue this important discussion. thank you. thank all!)

[TaleWgnDg]

9. As a lawyer, I am reciting law. You are not. Instead you are

reciting politics, culture, moralities, etc. End of discussion.

.

[nofurylike]

10. "As a lawyer" you are discussing framing of law. "end of discussion" yes

sir!

yuck

[nofurylike]

11. ps - they're lucky so many adopt their framing. do their work for them. nt

[closeupready]

16. Even the Catholic Church admits it's an immutable characteristic -

So while I understand the Church says the Earth if flat while science says the Earth is round, :D , I'm not sure I agree with your claim that medical science sees sexual orientation as mutable and changeable, nor even that it's such a long shot argument.

[dsc]

13. This debate actually occured in the 2000 primaries

Bradley wanted to amend the Civil Rights statute to include homosexuals while Gore wanted a stand alone ENDA bill. The advantage of amending the Civil Rights bill would be more protections while the advantage of ENDA is or at least was then, easier to pass.

[nofurylike]

14. sorry about that. i would be interested in what you find querying

legislators on this.

since fighting on our legitimate legal ground as people isn't working, it does seem crucial to our safe survival that we have our rights stamped boldly into the constitution.

maybe we should have started fighting for equal rights as single people. that was the origin of our exclusion, really, our not perpetuating heterosexual marriage, which is an economically privileged status.

please keep on!


peace!

[closeupready]

15. Good idea, but the ERA failed - why should gays fare better?

I mean, if women couldn't get an Equal Rights Amendment passed, what makes you think gays - the most hated minority in America - could ever get one passed? Not anytime soon.

But one can dream. :)