Name one civil right a man has that a woman doesn't. Just one. NAME ONE. - prop8

[goletian]

civil rights are those granted by the 14th amendment of the constitution:

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

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.

If a man has the right to vote, does a woman?................................ YES.
If a man has the right to live in a particular city, does a woman?.......... YES.
If a man has the right to attend a public school, does a woman?.............. YES.
If a man has the right to drive a car, does a woman?......................... YES.
If a man has the right to own a house, does a woman?......................... YES.
If a man has the right to work at a company, does a woman?................... YES.
If a man has the right to marry a woman, does a woman?....................... NO... ...HUH? WTF?

It makes no sense, people. It makes no fucking sense. The disparity here is BLATANTLY obvious. It doesn't matter what your rationale for being a bigot is. Doesn't matter if you think it's a choice or not. Doesn't matter if you think it's gross. Doesn't matter if that's not what YOU think marriage should be, or what your church thinks marriage should be. You know what DOES matter? The CONSTITUTION. THE LAW OF THE LAND -- THE SUPREME LAW. CIVIL RIGHTS MATTER. Forget the side arguments listed above, what does all of that matter when it comes down to the 14th amendment? Where in there do you see anything about it mattering what you think, or what your church thinks? Where is it? It isn't in there. ITS WRONG TO DENY RIGHTS. IT IS WRONG. WITHOUT A DOUBT -- ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY WRONG.

You guys think this doesn't have any affect on you? "I'm not gay, what do I care?" You can't relate? Can't empathize? Well, guess what. EVERYONE has civil rights. If they can be denied when a man wants to marry a man, or when a woman wants to marry a woman, then that means YOUR civil rights are also susceptible to violation -- YOUR RIGHTS ARE PROTECTED BY THE SAME DAMNED AMENDMENT.

Maybe one day people in YOUR state ask, hey, should we let black people into public schools? Let's take a vote! Or, hey, should we let Mexicans move into this neighborhood? Let's take a vote! Should we let Christians attend this university? Let's take a vote! Should we let white people vote? Let's vote on it! Now, how fucking ridiculous does that sound to you? Pretty stupid, right?

GET YOUR FUCKING SHIT TOGETHER, AMERICA.

[Ian David]

1. Women aren't legally entitled to a prostate exam.

Not that they would WANT one.

But seriously...

[goletian]

6. yes they are. they just dont have prostate glands...

[Ian David]

8. Not that we know of, anyway. They could just be keeping it a secret... to avoid the exams. n/t

[goletian]

14. luckily i havent had the "pleasure," so i cant comment. lol

[awoke_in_2003]

65. Some advice for when the time comes...

if you feel hands on both your shoulders, the doctor is doing it wrong :)

[goletian]

90. >_< - nt

[hippywife]

44. Trust me when I say this.

You guys get off way easy in the exams and bodily functions department. Way easy! :hi:

[Wednesdays]

49. Have you ever heard the expression, "Turn your head and cough"?

That can be pretty painful, too. :(

But yeah, I agree there's a heckuva lot more painful stuff women have to endure.

[liberalmuse]

2. Gays, get married anyways.

Don't let them put you at the back of the bus. This is wrong. Fuck them.

[yardwork]

9. Yeah, we can get married but the laws don't apply to us.

Married people enjoy more than one thousand laws that are denied to gay people who live together. Sure, I can find a Pagan priest who would marry my partner and me, but it wouldn't mean shit to the state in which we live. We'd still have no rights.

[tazkcmo]

3. Exactly. n/t

[harun]

4. No one is stopping you from being together.

[yardwork]

11. No, just stopping me from having the same 1,000 rights enjoyed by married people.

And, of course, those pesky housing and employment laws that don't protect me from being fired or tossed out of housing just because I'm gay. But you're right, nobody's stopping me from being with my partner - except the people who want to kill us.

[Orsino]

13. Fail.

"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California."

That sure as hell is an attempt to keep people from being together under law.

[goletian]

16. you can go on dates with the opposite sex all you want, too. no ones stoppin ya, right?

how about we take marriage away from you? you guys can be together regardless, right?

[unpossibles]

22. if my partner is sick in the hospital they sure are.

Equal Rights for all.

[harun]

48. Civil unions take care of that (n/t)

[Ms. Toad]

51. No, they don't.

Civil unions are not worth the paper they are recorded on beyond the borders of the state in which they were entered.

If the couple, or one member of the couple, becomes ill in a state other than the one which recognized/recorded the civil union, the other state has absolutely no obligation to honor their union. They can be prohibited from visiting in the hospital, blood relatives can come in and make medical decisions for the ill person - up to deciding whether to continue life support if that right is granted to blood relatives (as it often is, in the absence of a legally recognized spouse).

[Chovexani]

57. Not if my female parter gets sick outside the state the CU was performed in

God just go back to Freak Republic, you ignorant toad.

[RedCappedBandit]

61. Nice try

but you fail.



Bigots don't belong on DU.

[awoke_in_2003]

68. It comes down to precedent...

all of our laws dealing with "unions" (like probate laws, lending laws, tax laws) use the word "marriage" not "union"

[unpossibles]

72. as do equal rights

why fight over semantics instead of just allowing true equal rights?

[Dogtown]

76. Hate you

Wouldn't date you.

[gollygee]

25. They might be

My husband is from another country. We met when he was visiting an American friend for several weeks near where I was living at the time. We got married so he could live and work here and therefore so we could be together. If we weren't a male/female couple we would have been stopped from being together.

A same-sex couple in that situation would be stopped from being together.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

47. Yeah...they're just stopping people from having that stupid thing called civil rights

[LostinVA]

52. Posters like you make me fucking SICK -- why are you even here on DU?

[harun]

79. I have exactly the same position and opinion on it as Barack Obama

That's why I am here. Why are you here?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73oZ_pe1MZ8

[goletian]

91. no you dont, obama would never make such a ridiculous, disingenuous argument.

[libnnc]

54. if my partner dies her retirement vanishes into thin air

No survivor benefits for me at all.

Is that fair?

[Jamastiene]

60. What an assholish thing to say.

What's with the attitude? Oh, wait, nevermind. I've decided to be proactive today and add generously and graciously to my ever increasing ignore list. Glad I'll never hear from you again.

[awoke_in_2003]

66. To expound what yardwork said...

if I am comatose in a hospital, my wife can give the order to pull the plug (that is what I want) and my father and sisters cannot say squat (not that they would, but you get the point). In event of death, if the will goes to probate court, who has more say- a spouse or a life partner? Just a few examples of the prejudices gay couples have to face. There is also a discount on income tax for being married. How many banks out there would give out mortgage loans to gay couples at the same rate that they do married couples? I am sure someone else can add more.

P.S. Supreme Court already determined that Separate is not Equal- at least to race. Hopefully one day that will apply to all things.

[Richard Steele]

74. That's some bogus crap, and I think you well know it. nm

[TheWraith]

Nitpick: Civil rights aren't granted by the 14th Amendment, they're protected by it. nt

[goletian]

12. they are granted by the 14th amendment, otherwise disparities in who gets rights would exist

yes, it does grant rights. but i know what you mean.

[TahitiNut]

26. I wouldn't cal that a 'nit' ... it's essential to understanding the Constitution.

(1) It is SOLELY by virtue of having rights the WE can even establish and adopt a Constitution. Our rights are the basis upon which the Constitution has validity.

(2) The Constitution defines the government, grants IT authorities, and defines LIMITS on its authority, including limits on its legitimate authority to abridge and limit civil liberties, which are how human rights reflected in practice.

(3) In no way, shape or form does the Constitution create a human right. Period.

[goletian]

27. 14th amendment calls for equality, and by doing so...

it grants rights to those who otherwise wouldnt have them because they wouldve been discriminated against. thats the context in which i meant grant.

[SweetieD]

29. Agreed.

[goletian]

35. oohhhhhhhhhh, i get it. you guys talk about rights as if theyre inherent. absolute. i see.

[October]

83. really we just needed Title X because why?

I get that people are pissed. I am too. It please don't denigrate women's struggles. They are/were real.

[goletian]

86. i dont know what youre talking about. whos denigrating womens struggles?

[Fresh_Start]

5. men can be topless in many public places

women would be ticketed for public indecency.

[goletian]

10. i dont know that this is actually the case. i know of a case where police

entrapped a guy, got him to expose his genitals by luring him with a topless woman in a public park. she was fine. breastfeeding in public is fine, as far as i know. so no, i dont think so.

[Fresh_Start]

18. for example, Section 4322 of Title 14

of the California Administrative Code regarding nudity in the state parks... or any portion of the breast at or below the areola thereof of any female person.

All sections are misdemeanors which carry a maximum punishment of 90 days in jail and/or $1,000 fine.

[goletian]

19. thats a law that could be challenged under the right circumstances. but point taken.

thanks for being anticlimactic. lol, jk.

[Fresh_Start]

20. thats one example, there are many others similar in nature

women can't go topless and men can

Personally with manboobs and hairy backs, I think lots of men ought to be banned from being topless.
But no one is interested in protecting my sensibilities

[goletian]

21. see, if they removed female from there, then itd be fine.

when i was a kid in school i knew of a boy with absurdly huge man boobs. his sister told me she fainted when she saw them exposed once. it was a traumatic experience for her. poor girl.

[Wednesdays]

50. A little bit OT, but I'm just curious...

What's so sexual about an areola, anyway? :shrug:

[guitar man]

28. exactly

I have to say I highly object to that too. I think women should be able to go topless anywhere they want!

[Fresh_Start]

33. or manboobs and hairy backs need to cover up

in public places (and plumbers cracks and beer guts)

[awoke_in_2003]

69. And that is a shame...

the world could use more topless women. And there was that medical study that showed that men who stared at breasts 10 minutes a day were less likely to have heart attacks. Come on, women, do it for us guys :)

[Orsino]

7. Yeah.

:grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr:

[piedmont]

15. A woman also has the right to marry a man, but a man doesn't.

I'm for gay mariage, but your argument is a bit confusing.

[goletian]

17. yeah, i know. i was trying to keep it simple. i think you got it well enough.

[sinkingfeeling]

23. I don't know how old you are, but I remember very well when I was told that I

could not enter veterinarian school with a 3.9 GPA because I was female. When the AF ROTC told me to join 'Angel Flight' because no woman would ever pilot an USAF plane. When I was required to return the department store charge card I'd had for 4 years when I did marry, because all credit reports had to be in the husband's name. When I was told by my OB/GYN that I would have to get my husband's 'permission' to take birth control tablets. I remember having to have my father co-sign my first mortgage, because at 24, a woman couldn't be trusted to pay it back. And I'm proud to say that I was a 'first female' to hold a position within a division of my former corporation after 70+ years!

Guess what the 14th. Amendment didn't stop any of those things.

All that's changed now. I marched in the streets for women's rights and watched grown state senators hide in the men's bathroom rather than vote on the ERA's ratification!

You and every other member of society WILL have the right to marry whomever you wish. But it's a long hard road. We're all going to work for 'your day' together so why are you being so angry at us?

[goletian]

24. LOL, i'm not gay. you may have faced that discrimination even with the 14th amendment, but

that does not change the fact that those instances of unfair discrimination were violations of the 14th amendment. blatant violations. i'm glad to see things have been moving forward, as well as your true position in society restored as a result, but there is still work to be done. and i'm very happy to know you and i both are interested in seeing equality realized for our gay citizens, for everyone.

[Midlodemocrat]

40. I remember being in 7th grade and getting the

'privilege' to wear pants to school. And, my mom and dad being told that they were 'foolish' for putting aside money to send me to college because they also had three sons and those sons 'would need to provide for their families'.

Thank GOD, my mom and dad were who they were and didn't listen.



:hug:

[goletian]

42. wow. thats insane. its amazing how far we've come. thanks to liberals!

[Chovexani]

58. lol "your day" that really speaks for itself doesn't it

With allies like you no wonder we can't get anywhere. If and when we make progress it will be in spite of bullshit like that.

[sinkingfeeling]

78. See below. I will be canceling my financial support today.

[Toasterlad]

71. With All Due Respect, How Is What You Went Through Relevant?

Are you trying to make the case that, because you had to wait for equal treatment, gays should have to wait as well?

The whole underlying frustration of the gay equality battle is that we've DONE this before. We've been through the civil rights battle. We've lived through "separate but equal". We KNOW that we will eventually get our rights. We are just pissed off that we don't have them NOW, because the rest of the country is too stupid to realize that they are delaying the inevitable and fucking up our lives for no good reason.

I wonder if you realize how incredibly patronizing your post is? Do you realize you sound like a parent telling a child it can't have a treat now, that it must wait until after dinner? "And don't be mad at Mommy; she's doing this for your own good?"

The correct response to someone posting their frustration that their basic right to marry has just been taken away is NOT to bitch about what you went through, and then tell them not to be upset. The correct response is to say, "I am so sorry. I can't believe we live in such a backwards, asinine country. What can I do to help correct this massive fuck-up?" Failing that, you might want to keep your mouth shut.

[sinkingfeeling]

77. Are you all trying to deliberately drive away support? You did an excellent job. Maybe I will

just stop sending money to HRC. Since you don't want any help.

[Toasterlad]

80. Wow. I Can See You're Really Committed to the Fight.

It took a whole anonymous poster on the internet to get you withholding your money. I hope we can stand the loss of such a committed ally.

You're right, though, of course. If gay people are going to be so BITCHY, they really don't deserve equality.

[Zuiderelle]

89. Go ahead and stop. They didn't do much to help either. I'm cancelling my donation to them too.

You sure are pissy to a lot of people who are very hurt this week though. Why would you do that?

[SweetieD]

30. This analysis breaks down because gay people can get married, you just can't get married to who you

want to. Gay people are not a protected class, unlike racial minorities, women etc. There is no law preventing gay people from getting married. You just can't marry who you want to. (Don't shoot me) But I just wanted to throw that out there, that is the argument I have heard as to why gay marraige is not a federal civil rights issue.

[gollygee]

31. I really think Loving v. Virginia already defines this right as

the right to marry the person you want to marry, not just marriage in general.

[SweetieD]

81. no Loving v. Virginia involved race. Race is a protected class, Sexual orientation is not at least

on the federal level.

[goletian]

36. you can use that same exact logic to deny interracial marriage, but it is defeated by my examples

you cannot claim equality if there is inequality. if a man can marry a person that a woman cannot, that is not equality. black people couldnt marry white people decades ago, but black people could marry other black people. this would still be the case today if we applied that logic youre using.

[SweetieD]

82. Again race is a protected class, unlike other classifications.

You don't have an unequivocal right to marry whoever you want. You can't marry your sibling, you can't marry your 1st cousin in some states, you can't marry a second person.

The interracial marraige issue hinged on race, and it had a different standard than other classifications. Marraige laws that affected religion, nationality etc may be similarly not upheld. But sexual orientation/preference is not a protected class. Technically California could pass a law saying marraige can only be defined as a man marrying a woman as long as both are not stewardesses. That would be crazy but it may not be unconstitutional on equal protection grounds. I'm not a constiutional law scholar by a long shot, but these are my thoughts.

[goletian]

84. this discrimination defies the constitution. its not about classes, here.

yeah, no one can, so thats not a civil right. if no man could marry a woman, then a woman not being able to wouldnt be a civil rights issue at all.

[SweetieD]

88. I'm not sure what you mean really but anyway

the supreme court has made it clear that states can define marraige as long as it doesn't violate the US constitution. And I don't see where gay marraige bans would violate the US constitution based on current case law (before you harp on me, I said based on CURRENT CASE LAW). The Supreme Court will need to review one of these gay marraige bans. I don't believe they ever have yet. There are definitely arguments to be made as to why they violate the US constitution but there is more legal precedent against them currently. It is definitely an issue that the Supreme Court will have to make a decisive ruling on.

[goletian]

92. equal rights, equal protections, equal privileges - all in the constitution

so if a man has the right to marry a woman, then a woman has that right as well if we are equal. this is supported by the constitution. and if this goes to the supreme court of the us, unless the judges are incompetent, gay marriage will be a reality in every state.

[Bluenorthwest]

32. Great points

and thanks for making them.

[goletian]

38. thank you

thank you

[JerseygirlCT]

34. Civil rights should never be up for a majority vote. nt

[rvablue]

37. Here's one:

Men can go shirtless in public and not be cited or arrested.

[goletian]

39. that isnt the case everywhere, and i dont think it should be the case anywhere. youre right, though.

[ColbertWatcher]

41. I call it Prop Hate and it will be overturned by a court not influenced by a rich church and ...

... a barrage of hateful commercials.

[Cerridwen]

43. Ironic you should use the 14th.

I'd like to see a federal law specifically stating that neither "church" nor state nor corporation may deny the right of marriage, and/or the rights obtained through marriage, based on anything more than consent and chronological age. I'll have to play with the wording but perhaps you get my drift.

Right now my focus is on removing as much funding as is possible, from those "religious" organizations who attack personal freedoms, by way of taxes; holding them accountable through tax law. Next, I'd like to see election laws put in place that very specifically and explicitly define the acceptable role any "church," non-profit, or other corporation may take in the election process. I'd like to see people placed above corporate "personhood."

Before using the 14th Amendment as your basis for an argument, perhaps you might want to understand the unintended consequences which resulted from the 14th.

So, yeah, "America" needs to get our "shit together." The 14th has already proven hazardous in that regard.

A (very short) history lesson: (because so few seem to know this story)

Women had in some towns, counties, and a state or two, the right to vote and/or hold public office prior to the ratification of the 14th. Due to Section 2. of the 14th, those rights were rescinded. They would not regain the right again until the ratification of the 19th Amendment in 1920.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State. (emphasis added)

It was the first time a "voter" was defined as "male" in the US Constitution. Due to Section 2, many opponents of women's suffrage filed cases to have the right to vote removed from women in their town, county, or state; they were successful and women lost the right to vote or hold office. I believe there was also some concern that women would no longer be considered citizens; also due to the wording in Section 2.

Section 2 was also responsible for a serious break in the women's suffrage movement as suffragists were put into a position of having to choose between their rights and the rights of black men. The race-baiting and hatred presented in many publications of the day would seem right at home alongside some of the filth we saw this election cycle.

It was used to create a wedge from which the women's rights movement would take decades to recover. Some might argue, I'd agree with them, that it's never truly recovered.

It would not be until the The Voting Rights Act of 1964 was passed that all women and all men (over the age of 21) would be "fully" enfranchised (questionable as that may be these days).

Since its adoption, the 14th Amendment has been used to argue for the "personhood" of corporations far more than for the personhood and rights of persons of any color.

I'd rather stay far away from the 14th as it might give some knuckle-draggers the idea that we can return to the "golden olden" days where men were men and women were chattel.

[goletian]

45. yeah, that second section contradicts the first one. that doesnt go at all.

its good that you brought that up, but luckily it no longer seems to be an issue.

[SoCalDemocrat]

46. Why don't we just eliminate marriage altogether?

Marriage is a failed institution. Why don't we just fess up to it and strip any special benefits that it conveys?

Why is the state in the business of adminstrating personal unions in the first place?

The issue boils down to rights and privileges afforded to "married" partners. Preferably eliminate them, or make them avaiable equally. If I cohabitate with someone, anyone, who is a legal adult, apply the rules the same way. I could give a rats ass if people call themselves "Married" or not. Why don't we get rid of that as a legal distinction?

I'm getting a bit worn over the "Marriage" discussion.

[TheKentuckian]

73. Fuckin' A Bubba

If everyone really cared about equality we'd dump this as a legal status with special privileges in all cases. Who you decide to shack up with shouldn't get you tax breaks, you have inherent benefit from have a larger resource and time pool. If there are kids then exemptions may be filed for them.

People are getting special rights for coupling up and its the exact same bullshit for people that are single. What are you getting a coupon for pain and suffering or something? Is the government pimping us out?

Rights should be inclusive, so I'll error on the side of supporting guaranteeing the right of people to marry as they wish but it does bother me that the government is involved in this area at all and its unacceptable for rights and/or penalties to be granted/imposed by the state due to choices in associations.

This is all a bogus social engineering plan. If it means more than that to people that is a beautiful thing but why anyone should have special legal status is no clear from a truly fairness based standpoint.

[Fumesucker]

53. The right to marry a woman of course..

You even put the mirror image in your OP and didn't understand that it works both ways.

[Elidor]

55. I'm sorry

I hate it, too. We've got a long way to go.

:(

[Waiting For Everyman]

56. Equal pay.

[rug]

59. Q.E.D.

[Cerridwen]

62. .

[rug]

64. !

:rofl:

[Cerridwen]

67. .

:evilgrin:

[goletian]

87. ive seen plenty of women in mensrooms.

[pokerfan]

63. "It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them."

STAN: It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them.

REG: But... you can't have babies.

STAN: Don't you oppress me!

REG: I'm not oppressing you, Stan. You haven't got a womb! Where's the fetus going to gestate?! You going to keep it in a box?!

STAN: (crying)

JUDITH: I've got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can't actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans', but that he can have the right to have babies.

FRANCIS: Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother. Sister. Sorry.

[Omnibus]

70. Men aren't legally allowed to bear children...

Stan: It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them.
Reg: But you can't have babies.
Stan: Don't you oppress me.
Reg: Where's the fetus going to gestate? You going to keep it in a box?

(I don't mean anything negative, I just like Monty Python).

[Richard Steele]

75. Really? Do you have a link to any law that prohibits that? nm

[goletian]

85. so if a man somehow managed to become pregnant, the government would force an abortion? lol

thats nonsense.

[Corkey Mineola]

93. Excellent!

:kick: