Is it constitutional to ban gay marriage?

[Natasha]

Is it constitutional to ban gay marriage?

Link
4/6/2008

"The nation has asked the Supreme Court to decide. So far, gay marriage is only legal in one state. Over the next few years, state courts will be forced to give an answer. The decision will be an indicator of either progress for minorities or conservation of tradition. For some, it will be a matter of where America stands morally."

[Ell]

Is it constitutional to ban gay marriage?

That is an excellent question! Now that i think of it, all gay and trans rights should already be included in the constitution. we are humans, FFS, and deserve whatever rights and protections are available to other (straight) humans.

-Ellie

[LynnER]

 >
We as americans have the basic rights of "Life, Liberty, and the persuite of happyness..."

but then again, some people take the liberty of spending there lives presuing our happyness and makeing sure its left in the gutter somewhere... sometimes with our lives...     

Sometimes I wonder about the state of things...

[RebeccaFog]

The aliens, I mean, Europeans, have gender identity in their EU charter thing.

Why do we live in a jerkwater country?

[lady amarant]

We're lucky in South Africa in that our constitution specifically guarantees equal rights for everybody, regardless of any minority status they might have. It's taking time to translate that into legislation, but every now and again somebody challenges a discriminatory action or law and takes them to the Constitutional Court ( The highest court in South Africa ) and wins the day. The parliament is then compelled by law to amend legislation accordingly.

Could a similar approach work in the US, or are the two systems too different?

~Simone

[RebeccaFog]

I don't know.  I don't have much faith in it.

[Kate]

The decision will be an indicator of either progress for minorities or conservation of tradition. For some, it will be a matter of where America stands morally.

Isn't it really just a LEGAL question?

I don't get where all this "tradition" and "moral" stuff comes in, let alone having people VOTE on the issue?

We don't allow people to "vote" for slavery, do we? Or voting to "allow" interracial marriages?

It's nuts. Somewhere along the line people started thinking "democratic process" means a bullying tool to impose their personal prejudices upon everyone else.

~Kate~

[lady amarant]

We don't allow people to "vote" for slavery, do we? Or voting to "allow" interracial marriages?

It's nuts. Somewhere along the line people started thinking "democratic process" means a bullying tool to impose their personal prejudices upon everyone else.

Tyranny of the Majority. Best argument against democracy?

Seriously though, I agree. Democracy is about mutual protection and assurance of every individual's right to self-determination. The moment it becomes anything but that, it becomes tyranny. Nobody has the right to dictate to others what they may or may not do, except where those actions directly harm others. And by harm, we're talking impacting on the rights of others, not on their fragile sensibilities or preferences.

~Simone.

[Ell]

The decision will be an indicator of either progress for minorities or conservation of tradition. For some, it will be a matter of where America stands morally.

Isn't it really just a LEGAL question?

I don't get where all this "tradition" and "moral" stuff comes in, let alone having people VOTE on the issue?

We don't allow people to "vote" for slavery, do we? Or voting to "allow" interracial marriages?

It's nuts. Somewhere along the line people started thinking "democratic process" means a bullying tool to impose their personal prejudices upon everyone else.

~Kate~

Yeah!! what do they think they're trying to pull?

if you lose your job because you can no longer do the required tasks, that's one thing, but if you've been laid off just because you're trans, please call the ACLU and file a complaint, based on the grounds that your constitutional rights were violated.

Thank you.

-Ellie

[tekla]

"Life, Liberty, and the persuite of happyness..." - is from the Declaration of Independance, and not part of the Consititution.

As a constitional issue, all of this falls under the 14th Ammendment's "Due Process" clause for the most part. 

I doubt that the Court can say much one way or the other, marraige is not in the Constitution.

We don't allow people to "vote" for slavery, do we? Or voting to "allow" interracial marriages?

Umm, we did - for almost a hundered years, the provisions involving slavery were the most debated sections of the Constitution at the convention.

[Ell]

As a constitional issue, all of this falls under the 14th Ammendment's "Due Process" clause for the most part.

True. and that's exactly what's wrong with this picture.

1) losing your job can be extremely serious, and therefore easily falls under the category of something which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. (also included in 14th Amendment).

2) Due process means a fair and impartial trial.

3) Having your boss drop into your cubicle and saying "So long," is not due process!!!

so, again, if you have been fired for no other reason except you're trans, please call the ACLU and inform them that you have been denied Due Process, and therefore your Constitutional Rights, as outlined in the 14th Amendment, have been violated.

Thanks again.

-Ellie

[tekla]

Perhaps, but the U.S. Constitition is a very different document than most Consititions.  Its not as much a governmental charter, as a business charter.  Most of the real provisions deal with commerce, not government.  That "the business of America is business" has been pretty much true from day one. 

Those things, "fair and impartial trial" are requirements for governments, not business.

[Ell]

Those things, "fair and impartial trial" are requirements for governments, not business.

True. but all businesses must adhere to their State laws.

and again, the 14th Amendment reads, 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.

Since businesses must follow the rules of their state, they are in open violation for firing anyone merely for being trans.

-Ellie

[tekla]

I don't think that's correct.  I think that the States have to follow, but business have to follow state and federal law, if no law exists, then there can be no violation.  Most of those laws only affect larger companies anyway.  Business having 50 or fewer employees, (these are the majority of business by the way) tend to get exceptions. 

And though I'm sure I'm in the minority here, I do think that for the most part, with very, very few exceptions - that business have the right to hire and fire people as they see fit for the good of the company and the shareholders.

[Ell]

I don't think that's correct.

No Tekla. it's stated in black & white, in plain English.

it doesn't make sense for business to overstep what the State clearly cannot do. just include the State in the ACLU filed complaint. Two defendants.

-Ellie

[Chaunte]

Tekla has a point in that marriage is not in the Constitution.

If a state were to pass a law banning gay marriage, and it was approved by the elected representatives within that state, one would think that due process was followed.

However, what may be unconstituional is in limiting the rights of any one group over the while accepting the same rights of the majority.

I need to pull out my copy of the Constitution!

Chaunte

[RebeccaFog]

I don't see why we don't just burn the constitution and have a new assembly to write one up according to the needs and beliefs of people of this era.

The constitution should be burned every century.   Then people would have to actually think about what kind of world they want to live in.


show me where it is.  I'll burn it right now.

[Shana A]

show me where it is.  I'll burn it right now.

Too late, GW Bush and Co have completely trashed the constitution. 

Z

[debbie j]

show me where it is.  I'll burn it right now.

Too late, GW Bush and Co have completely trashed the constitution. 

Z

and did a very good job trashing it as they did it   

Posted on: April 06, 2008, 09:38:40 PMhonestly i dont think there should be a  constitutional to ban gay marriage at ALL !! honestly i think if 2

gay people be it male or female . get together and they want to get married. then they should have the

right to do so . just like all the heterosexual people have the right to . and yes i know its a big fight. but

gay or not gay i believe we need to and should fight for these right,s . when they are put up for a public

vote . and i will also say even if your trans gendered. you too should have the right to get married . just like

any one too. and i say every time those whom we have voted in office . do not wish to do our will  and

make the vote showing them in favorer of the passing the bill for gay and  trans gendered. then the next

time they come up for re election . then they should be voted out of that office. and some one that will

do the will of the gay and trans gendered. people should be voted into that said office . 


BTW SORRY IF I OFFENDED ANYONE AT ALL BY THIS  . AS IAM JUST SPEEKING MY MIND FREELY.  .

and DO NOT MEAN TO OFFEND ANYONE  AT ALL 

[RebeccaFog]

Hi Deb,

   I'm sure you haven't offended anyone.   I agree with the idea of voting out deadbeats.  It's just hard to get everyone else who votes to agree.