Democratic Contenders Address Gay Rights in TV Forum

[headhuntersix]

They are pushing an agenda and trying to make it a right. They lump it in with Civil Rights, but most people look at it like a life style choice as Beach said. its a choice that really pisses alot of people off.

[Dos Equis]

It's a conservative issue in the sense that CONSERVATIVES continually raise the issue. As you've noted already, democrats are "cowardly" on the issue and state ballot after state ballot rejects it. Conservatives reliably use this issue as a wedge, even though there is no real momentum behind it from liberals. It's a scare tactic, plain and simple.

Al that's just factually inaccurate.  Liberals and conservatives raise the issue.  Even two of the most liberal states in the country, Hawaii and Oregon, rejected homosexual marriage.  Liberals dominate the state of Hawaii at all levels.  We elected our first Republican governor in over 40 years four years ago.  This is effectively a one party state.  

Even after homosexual activists spent an enormous amount of money lobbying for homosexual marriage in Oregon, the liberal voters rejected it.  It has never been endorsed by any state in the country.  The only state that allows homosexual marriage did it by court decision (Massachusetts).    

[Decker]

There is no fundamental right for a man to marry another man, just like there is no fundamental right to smoke in public place.  Both are lifestyle choices.  There is no fundamental right for a man to marry two women. 

Has a court ever determined that homosexual marriage is a fundamental right? 

If you read my last post you'd know the answers to your questions.

There is a fundamental right to marriage.

U.S. Supreme Court
316 U.S. 535
SKINNER
v.
STATE OF OKLAHOMA
ex rel. WILLIAMSON, Atty. Gen. of Oklahoma.
No. 782.

Argued and Submitted May 6, 1942
Decided June 1, 1942 (the Court couches Its holding in terminology of race and biology which undercuts its application but the holding remains the same:  Fundamental right.)

Now the SCT has held that gays have a right to privacy, so goodbye southern anti-sodomy laws.  But the Court's treatment of marriage as a fundamental right has been problematic.  If it were a fundamental right in the sense that life or liberty is a fundamental right, the states couldn't say shit about gay marriage.  But the prevarication has opened the door to state control.

And as you know, the equal protection tact fails b/c of the class standing of gays.

So I'll go back to my original contention that gays should be left alone to marry b/c the fundamental right to the pursuit of happiness along with the fundamental (albeit quasi) right to marriage coupled with my aversion to an over-reaching State calls for such a conclusion.

Other justifications are not good enough.  But that's me.

[Dos Equis]

If you read my last post you'd know the answers to your questions.

There is a fundamental right to marriage.

U.S. Supreme Court
316 U.S. 535
SKINNER
v.
STATE OF OKLAHOMA
ex rel. WILLIAMSON, Atty. Gen. of Oklahoma.
No. 782.

Argued and Submitted May 6, 1942
Decided June 1, 1942 (the Court couches Its holding in terminology of race and biology which undercuts its application but the holding remains the same:  Fundamental right.)

Now the SCT has held that gays have a right to privacy, so goodbye southern anti-sodomy laws.  But the Court's treatment of marriage as a fundamental right has been problematic.  If it were a fundamental right in the sense that life or liberty is a fundamental right, the states couldn't say shit about gay marriage.  But the prevarication has opened the door to state control.

And as you know, the equal protection tact fails b/c of the class standing of gays.

So I'll go back to my original contention that gays should be left alone to marry b/c the fundamental right to the pursuit of happiness along with the fundamental (albeit quasi) right to marriage coupled with my aversion to an over-reaching State calls for such a conclusion.

Other justifications are not good enough.  But that's me.

I only asked one question:  "Has a court ever determined that homosexual marriage is a fundamental right?"  I assume the answer is no.  This is something that ought to be decided by the voters. 

Everyone has the right to pursue happiness.  They don't have the right to force other people to accept their lifestyle choices. 

[w8tlftr]

To quote the Dice Man, "Ten percent of vasciline and get the fuck back in the closet." 

Seriously, big waste of time. There are scores of Americans in both parties that oppose gay marriage. The gay and lesbian community will suck up to the Democrats because they think they have a better chance of getting their agenda passed. The Democrats who love to take their voter base for granted will say, "blah blah blah we care but no gay marriage for you!"

In the end the gays will walk away getting screwed without so much as a reach around. I mean, what are they gonna do? Vote Republican?

BTW, why didn't anyone on the panel ask Hillary, Obama, or Breck Girl if they were gay enough to be President? 

[Decker]

I only asked one question:  "Has a court ever determined that homosexual marriage is a fundamental right?"  I assume the answer is no.  This is something that ought to be decided by the voters. 

Everyone has the right to pursue happiness.  They don't have the right to force other people to accept their lifestyle choices. 

Why assume the answer is "no" when you can look at various SCT caselaw?
GRISWOLD v. CONNECTICUT
U.S. Supreme Court
 381 U.S. 479 (1965)
Decided June 7, 1965.

"The present case, then, concerns a relationship lying within the zone of privacy created by several fundamental constitutional guarantees."

"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights - older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions"
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/griswold.html

Last time I checked, no one had a right to not be offended by the way someone else lives their lives.

[Decker]

...
BTW, why didn't anyone on the panel ask ... Breck Girl if they were gay enough to be President? 

That's b/c Mitt Romney was not on the panel.  This week he's a republican.

[Dos Equis]

Why assume the answer is "no" when you can look at various SCT caselaw?
GRISWOLD v. CONNECTICUT
U.S. Supreme Court
 381 U.S. 479 (1965)
Decided June 7, 1965.

"The present case, then, concerns a relationship lying within the zone of privacy created by several fundamental constitutional guarantees."

"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights - older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions"
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/griswold.html

Last time I checked, no one had a right to not be offended by the way someone else lives their lives.

They're talking about marriage between one man and one woman.  So, I think my assumption is correct.   

[w8tlftr]

That's b/c Mitt Romney was not on the panel.  This week he's a republican.

Come clean, Decker.

U luv teh Romneyz Bob's Big Boy look.