As a white, straight, fat old male, here is my "spin" on the "Gay Agenda" regarding civil rights:

[Tyler Durden]

Equal Treatment Under The Law As Guaranteed By The Constitution Of The United States.

Nothing more, nothing less. This is the pledge of the new nation that Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, Hancock and the rest vowed to defend by this promise"...we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor."

I present to you, the FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, SECION 1:


"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."


This apparently does not have any exclusions, such as "This does not apply to atheists, Muslims, the mental or physically challenged, or male/female homosexuals, bisexuals, transexuals or transgendered persons."

People, I am posting this HERE and in GD. I am sick and tired of hearing about "Civil Unions," "the rights of religious fundamentalists to 'honestly held beliefs,'" and other such nonsense. The law is CLEAR. NO STATE or THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT may abridge ANY CIVIL RIGHT COMMON TO ALL CITIZENS FROM ANY INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN OR GROUP OF CITIZENS.

This is not negotiable. This is not up for discussion. This is not a subjective issue.

It IS an issue of BASIC CIVIL RIGHTS, and anyone saying differently is a poltroon and a liar, and only worthy of scorn and rejection by true citizens and supporters of the nation, no matter what their personal or religious belief may be, AS THESE HAVE NO STANDING IN THE PROSECUTION OF EQUAL RIGHTS AND TREATMENT UNDER THE LAW.

Here endeth the damned lesson AGAIN.

[Johnny__Motown]

1. I think we all agree that equal protection under the law is the only answer

The only fight I see (as a straight somewhat thinner not quite old white male) is over the word "Marriage".


If a Civil Union provides the exact same protection for same sex couples as a Marriage does for non-same sex couples then the requirement seems to have been met.


(Please keep in mind I am playing devil's advocate here. I am simply addressing the argument not condoning it)

[LostinVA]

2. Seperate, but equal, is not equal

[Tyler Durden]

3. I understand what you're saying...but it can't work that way anymore.

When each of the states can make, as Michigan did, their own constitutional amendment that defines "marriage" in a certain way, then they can ALWAYS make certain that any "rights" they wish to keep out of the "slimy claws of the perverts" be defined as relegated strictly to the state of "MARRIAGE."

Give these pigs wiggle room, and they will wiggle out of it and we'll be right back where we started. Again.

[TechBear_Seattle]

6. In light of the First Amendment, all marriage laws ALREADY are "civil unions"

Creating a different term -- which, by the way, is inherently UNequal -- creates an entirely false picture of what is happening. Anyone who claims that marriage is a religious institution is either deluded, ignorant or willfully stupid. Unless, that is, you can point out the laws that regulate who can be baptized or which give recognition to those who have been bar mitzvah-ed or grant special rights to people who have received confirmation. :hi:

[Tyo]

12. The question is how we are seen by straight society

It is impossible to ignore how closely the establishment of separate institutions and the leaving it up to the individual states to grant us our rights and to what extent (or not at all) mirrors the conditions under which Blacks the South lived up until the last third of the 20th century.

How much this will resonate with straight Americans depends on the degree to which they see us a "true" minority, co-equal with racial minorities, that deserves to be mainstreamed into society on equal terms with everyone else.

The analogy loses most of its power if they think of us as simply a special interest group, albeit one with which they might sympathize, that is employing the language of civil rights in an attempt to achieve a status that we don't really warrant. In the latter case, you can see how civil unions would seem to them to be a perfectly adequate accommodation.

[Warpy]

4. Right, and that's why marriage laws have been extended

to gay and lesbian couples in a few places. Access to that particular body of law is guaranteed by the constitution, unaffected by the morbid religious scruples of administrators.

Unfortunately, marriage is tied up with a lot of pink ribbons to a tremendous amount of baggage. It is necessary to define what the body of civil law concerning it actually does: promote an unrelated individual into the position of first degree relative. All the other stuff is just there in case of property squabbles and offspring distribution and support and can be gotten around by enough contracts. However, no other body of law allows a partner to visit in an ICU or claim a body after death.

Personally, I think a civil domestic partnership should be issued when both partners present at the county courthouse and sign the marriage license in front of witnesses. From that point on, they should be covered by marriage law. Church marriage is optional, and those churches with official policies of declaring homosexuality icky don't have to perform them. There are plenty of liberal, welcoming churches out there to perform a marriage ceremony.

I do know there are a lot of straight couples out there who would stop with the civil domestic partnership, hoping to escape a lot of the sexist baggage around marriage. It's already happening in Canada.

However, the law needs to apply to all consenting adult couples. We can't accept anything else unless we want to open a real can of worms by revoking the equal treatment amendment.

[Tyler Durden]

5. I asked the cowards in GD-P to come clean.

Does their candidate support the 14th amendment: YES or NO?

Got 15 replies, with only a couple from non-cowards.

[TechBear_Seattle]

7. Oo, I *like* that question!

I will have to use that one. :toast:

[NMMNG]

9. Valiant try, Tyler

But they've made it obvious they don't give a shit about us. Let them do without our money or votes from now on.

[keroro gunsou]

8. and as a fat straight guy...

damn, i never thought of that approach....

which begs the question... why wasn't it considered prior to this... or am i really out of the loop.

[Creideiki]

10. The real problem is that it requires courts to operate according to the Constitution

instead of according to their bias.

[Tyler Durden]

11. And the biggest problem with that is it requires the FED to reign in the states.

Something that Bush, and if he gets elected, Obama will never do.

[yodermon]

13. Didn't Canada legalize gay marriage using that same approach?

If person A can marry person B, but person C *cannot* marry person B *simply because of their gender*, then that is defacto unequal treatment and therefore unconstitutional, QED.

link re Canada: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Canada

[Hydra]

14. You've summed up how things are supposed to be

Right now, though, the rule of law has been suspended indefinitely. That means that the constitution is currently not in effect, and cannot be referenced.

You're absolutely right, though. Consider how someone would react were these churches to say that Blacks or Latinos were not allowed to marry. They would be permitted "civil unions" with limited privileges.

How does the LBGT community feel about being declared subhuman, and how the rest of America sees merit in that suggestion?

[Tyo]

15. You've hit on the basic problem

IMO most Americans, even those who are generally sympathetic to our cause, do not see us as a "true" minority in the sense that they see Blacks or Asians or Latinos as minorities. Somewhere I think there is still the lurking feeling that gay is a behaviour rather than an immutable trait. In terms of marriage it shouldn't make any difference, but obviously it does.