Anti-Gay Marriage Constitution Amendments... against the First Amendment?

[Meldread]

I was thinking of a possible way of fighting these anti-gay Constitutional Amendments. Here is the first Amendment of the United States Constitution:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

My points:

1. It is clearly obvious that all the anti-marriage Constitutional Amendments are being pushed by religious groups. This could violate the "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." These folks clearly want to argue that their crusade is on a moral and "religious" basis.

2. A group of pro-gay Christian leaders could declare that they want to have weddings for gay couples, and since secular marriage and religious marriage have been intertwined in this debate, they could argue that their right to freely exercise their religion has been curtailed. (This is the weakest argument, I think.)

3. Gays could claim that our freedom of speech is under assault because we're not being allowed to engage in making a legal, secular contract with one another. (That is what marriage is under the law, a contract between two individuals.)

I'm not a lawyer, and I am just trying to be clever. However, I don't see why the first method can't work. It could be tried out in California. Does anyone know what happens when you have two Constitutional Amendments that conflict with each other, does the court have any say?

[cliffordu]

1. Equal protection under the law....????

pursuit of happiness???

[xchrom]

2. please remember that ani-gay bigotry isn't just a matter of religion.

anti-gay bigotry enjoys a kind of universal enjoyment.

attributing to the religious only is to misunderstand it.

however i fear this will fall on deaf ears.

[Meldread]

5. I know.

There are plenty of Atheists who are also against LGBT people.

However, I suppose I simply like the idea of sticking it to religious groups who are trying to enforce their world view onto us by using the government. So I do think, at least to a non-expert, that the first part of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment might hold some water.

[xchrom]

7. you and i will have to agree to disagree.

and that is all.

[ruggerson]

3. It has more bite with an equal protection argument

which already has some footing in both Roemer and Lawrence.

[mondo joe]

6. Bingo.

Of course we'll need a Supreme Court that recognizes the principles in Roemer and Lawrence, to say nothing of Loving.

[xchrom]

9. no conservative supremes will be replaced during obama's tenure.

in the mean time liberty university, chicago and yes even harvard will continue to pump out right of center judges that presidents will have to pick from.

an effort both well conceived AND executed by the right -- both secular and non-secular -- which onle begins to get to the problem
with the OP.

[SoCalNative]

10. Never say never

John Roberts could get hit by a bus or something

[mondo joe]

11. I don't mean to be difficult, but we can't know who will be replaced on the court.

And Obama is already in place to reshape the federal courts:

President-elect Obama will enter office with an immediate opportunity to begin shaping the federal courts by filling four dozen openings on trial and appeals courts.

Federal judges, with lifetime appointments, can be a president's most enduring legacy. President Bush receives uniformly high marks from Republicans, even those who criticized him on other issues, for his selection of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito.

Public attention typically is focused on the Supreme Court, where five justices are older than 70. Speculation about a possible opening centers on 88-year-old Justice John Paul Stevens, but any retirement is unlikely before the summer, if then.

By contrast, 14 seats are open on appeals courts or will be by the end of January. Democratic appointees are a majority on only one of the 13 federal appeals courts, the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/6101982.html



Of course, however, we can't just count on having good luck in the courts.

[xchrom]

15. what ever you say -- however obama has played his politics

very center of the road on issues like this -- meaning denial of lgbtiq rights.

in the mean time conservatives wil be placing their judges in the states for filling benches -- and the over arching conservative drive for bench seats hasn't magically come to an end.

[mondo joe]

16. True. I always felt Obama was too deep in the pockets of the churches.

And especially after Prop 8 we know how bad that can be.

[bliss_eternal]

4. I agree that it goes against the first amendment.

Unfortunately women, children, brown people, the disabled and glbt people weren't the consideration when it was written (just wealthy white men). This is usually why they find ways to circumvent the first amendment argument when it comes to the rights of such individuals.

[Jamastiene]

12. In other words, to this day, they do not apply the First Amendment

equally across the board.

[bliss_eternal]

13. Exactly.

I guess equal under the law is fine, as long as it doesn't rain on someone else's parade--or offend their personal sensibilities.

Kind of the reason I shy away from arguments that utilize the First amendment. I , as a women was considered property under the law---as were others. If I (and others like me) weren't considered when it was written, why would we be now?

[Jamastiene]

17. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

As a kid, I was taught that we do not have aristocracy/castes/class distinctions in America. Why that myth is still pushed, and more importantly, why the average citizen still pretends to believe it, I don't know. It is simply not true. We have a definite pecking order in our society that starts with the status quo and works its way down to the bottom of the pecking order. Right now, the bottom rung seems to be a three way tie between the GLBT community, women, and the black community.

There has GOT to be a way to bust that top rung of the hierarchy up so that the ruling class either has to un-ass the rest of the civil rights or make enough to go around. That seems to be the group that has that mentality that there aren't enough rights to go around, like we all can't have rights at the same time. I have noticed that they are the ones who perpetuate the myth that in order for gay people to get any rights, straight people have to give their rights up. That has always confused me. Why do people buy into that belief that granting gay rights takes straight people's rights away? I've never understood that.

[bliss_eternal]

18. The bottom rung is a tad more diverse...

...add ALL brown, yellow and beige people. Add the poor, the working poor, the disabled and the elderly (if they aren't wealthy, of course).

Quote:
Why do people buy into that belief that granting gay rights takes straight people's rights away?
I've never understood that.

Advertising. Fox news. Propaganda. Lack of alernative explanations that make sense to them. For example, why it's important that the people have rights equivalent to their own and EXACTLY how they are absolutely in no danger whatsoever of losing anything they value in life.

Part of the reason Fox news is SO successful is it plays on people's fears and the belief that "there's just not enough to go around." There's not enough money, not enough rights, not enough opportunity, etc. So what do they do? They get the conservative minded (usually those fearful of some OTHER group, individual, etc.) mobilized by spelling out for them, WHO the OTHER is, what they look like, etc.

Where do you thnk all the "gay agenda" bullshit came from?
The Feminazi campaigns?
All te Immigration is out of control crap?

If there's a possibility that they (conservative caucasians), are in danger of being blamed for anything, they put their spin machine to work. That ensures the brown people are there to take the brunt of the responsibility and blame--(taking eyes off of them) so they can continue. (cue scary music)

Brilliant, effective and totally evil. ;)

:hug:

[SoCalNative]

8. 14th Amendment would be a better argument

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.

[Phredicles]

14. Good thread; I thought H8 violates the 1st and 14th amendments,

but I'm not any sort of lawyer, so it was a pretty half-baked notion.