Re: Open challenge to all anti-gay marriage nutjobs (and people who'd bet on anything)
- From: "DaVoice" <davoicergp@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2008 21:00:38 -0800
"Beldin the Sorcerer" <beldinyyz@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Qt%0l.1520$c35.1221@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From : Brown V Board of Education
Such considerations apply with added force to children in grade and high
schools. To separate them from others of similar age and qualifications
solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to
their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a
way unlikely ever to be undone. The effect of this separation on their
educational opportunities was well stated by a finding in the Kansas case
by a court which nevertheless felt compelled to rule against the Negro
plaintiffs:
"Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a
detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when
it has the sanction of the law, for the policy of separating the races is
usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the negro group. A
sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn.
Segregation with the sanction of law, therefore, has a tendency to
[retard] the educational and mental development of negro children and to
deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive in a racial[ly]
integrated school system
Last time I checked "Gay" is not a race.
From : Loving V Virginia
There can be no question but that Virginia's miscegenation statutes rest
solely upon distinctions drawn according to race. The statutes proscribe
generally accepted conduct if engaged in by members of different races.
Over the years, this Court has consistently repudiated "[d]istinctions
between citizens solely because of their ancestry" as being "odious to a
free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality."
Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U. S. 81, 320 U. S. 100 (1943). At the
very least, the Equal Protection Clause demands that racial
classifications, especially suspect in criminal statutes, be subjected to
the "most rigid scrutiny," Korematsu v. United States, 323 U. S. 214, 323
U. S. 216 (1944), and, if they are ever to be upheld, they must be shown
to be necessary to the accomplishment of some permissible state objective,
independent of the racial discrimination which it was the object of the
Fourteenth Amendment to eliminate. Indeed, two members of this Court have
already stated that they
"cannot conceive of a valid legislative purpose . . . which makes the
color of a person's skin the test of whether his conduct is a criminal
offense."
Again, last time I checked Gay does not imply a color of skin or an
"ancesrtry"
McLaughlin v. Florida, supra, at 379 U. S. 198 (STEWART, J., joined by
DOUGLAS, J., concurring).
There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of
invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The
fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white
persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their
own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy.
[Footnote 11] We have consistently denied
Page 388 U. S. 12
the constitutionality of measures which restrict the rights of citizens on
account of race. There can be no doubt that restricting the freedom to
marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central
meaning of the Equal Protection Clause.
Again, RACE is the issue. Gay is not a race.
II
These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of
law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal
rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our
very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U. S. 535, 316 U. S.
541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U. S. 190 (1888). To deny this
fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial
classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly
subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth
Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty
without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the
freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial
discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not
marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be
infringed by the State.
"on the basis of racial classifications" Gay is not a "race".
***
The SCOTUS has set bad precident before... largely in areas of
discriminatory decisions, rooted in the prejudices of the justices.
When Willie the newsgroup nutbag insists that the matter is "settled"
because in the 70's, the court was prejudiced, it shows what a moron he
is.
Establishing a second class of rights for gays inherently establishes them
AS second class. Eventually the court will be made up of people non-biased
enough to understand that.
None of the case law you cited even comes CLOSE to the rights for gays to
marry (frankly, I've changed my mind and don't think the STATE should
license Marriage, it is a religious thing traditionally) therefore No State
should sanction ANY marriage, IMHO
Open wager : Some time in the next 20 years, gay marriage bans will be
found unconstitutional.
Only if under the Equal protection clause, but not due to any of the cites
you quoted, and not as long as the SCOTUS is in present form or anthing like
it. It will depend on Obama's appointments, and any appointments made by
his successors.
Term : Jan 1 2009- Dec 31, 2028
Amounts to be negotiated.
Ok, still have my attention
Rules :
A SCOTUS decision is passed in the timeframe making gay marriage
restrictions illegal. I win.
Since you're the one that is so sure, what odds are you offering?
A federal law is passed making gay marriage the law of the land : Push, no
bet.
Huh? If the Constitution is changed to make gay marriage legal, no bet?
I'm liking this better than surrender in single-deck 21
The timeframe expires and no change. You win.
20 years from now Who will collect if one or both of the parties is DEAD?
Will this be put in escrow somewher
Logic assures us the SCOTUS eventually deals with this.It's only a matter
of time.
That is not necessarily true, although it *may* well be decided, but what if
SCOTUS doesn't grant any cases certiari in this matter? Who wins then?
Put up or shut up.
Still waiting to see what odds you're laying.
--
Rick "ADB DaVoice" Charles
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Open challenge to all anti-gay marriage nutjobs (and people who'd bet on anything)
- From: Beldin the Sorcerer
- Re: Open challenge to all anti-gay marriage nutjobs (and people who'd bet on anything)
- References:
- Open challenge to all anti-gay marriage nutjobs (and people who'd bet on anything)
- From: Beldin the Sorcerer
- Open challenge to all anti-gay marriage nutjobs (and people who'd bet on anything)
- Prev by Date: Re: Open challenge to all anti-gay marriage nutjobs (and people who'd bet on anything)
- Next by Date: Re: Watch Gus and Daniel on Video
- Previous by thread: Re: Open challenge to all anti-gay marriage nutjobs (and people who'd bet on anything)
- Next by thread: Re: Open challenge to all anti-gay marriage nutjobs (and people who'd bet on anything)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
