Clinton Urged Kerry to Back Gay Marriage Ban

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-11-05 12:49pm

Gender discrimination specifically does not. The ERA would be necessary for that.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-11-05 12:57pm

Durandal wrote:
Typhonis 1 wrote:IMHO Gay marrige should be State Right...let the individual states decide wether to allow it or not.
It's gender discrimination, which falls under the jurisdiction of the Constitution.

is it really? they discriminate against gay men and lesbian women equally, so how can it be a gender equality issue. I see it as more in line with the non gender specific wording of the 14th ammendment:

Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. 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; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

although even then one could make the arguement that no one is denying them the "right" to get married (do 'straight' people even have this supposed 'right'?) in the dictionary sense of the word "marraige".

ehhh, its just one big clusterfuck.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2004-11-05 12:59pm

I'm almost 100% certain that gays have been labeled a protected class by the Supreme Court.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2004-11-05 01:03pm

Col. Crackpot wrote: is it really? they discriminate against gay men and lesbian women equally, so how can it be a gender equality issue. I see it as more in line with the non gender specific wording of the 14th ammendment:

it's gender discrimination as they're stating which gender is acceptable to marry. this may seem black and white as there's only two genders, but think for a moment if there were two races/ethnicities. now get a law similar to this, saying someone could only marry within each ethnicity, but not someone of the opposite ethnic heritage (ie - two ethnicities, one black one white. it was acceptable for whites to marry each other, and for blacks to marry each other, but not for whites and blacks to intermarry), and you've effectively got the same scenario.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-11-05 01:05pm

Stravo wrote:I'm almost 100% certain that gays have been labeled a protected class by the Supreme Court.

then there is the arguement that protected class status conflicts with the aforementioned ammendment, but i digress. You damn lawyers, always making things so needlessley complex and just ambigiuous enough to protect your $300/hour billing rates.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2004-11-05 01:07pm

Col. Crackpot wrote:
Stravo wrote:I'm almost 100% certain that gays have been labeled a protected class by the Supreme Court.
then there is the arguement that protected class status conflicts with the aforementioned ammendment, but i digress. You damn lawyers, always making things so needlessley complex and just ambigiuous enough to protect your $300/hour billing rates.

I'll have you know my billing rate is $350/hr thank you very much.

Post by **Edi** » 2004-11-06 03:31am

9th and 14th amendment together create a blanket equality clause that makes gender discrimination illegal and which clearly means that prohibiting gay marriage is unconstitutional.

Edi

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2004-11-06 05:09am

Edi wrote:9th and 14th amendment together create a blanket equality clause that makes gender discrimination illegal and which clearly means that prohibiting gay marriage is unconstitutional.

Edi

The Christian fundimentalists will be woith you shortly