Jerry said:The Legislature would decide the law.
A licensed psychotherapist, neurologist or similar.
Well, I didn't speak of laws forbidding breeding.RightatNYU said:There's a few constitutional issues with allowing the legislature to tell a couple that they are not allowed to breed...
I wasn't speaking of creating 'separate classes of citizens' either.....or with creating separate classes of citizens.
I didn't say that there needed to be 2 opinions. There could be only one opinion needed.And what if two disagree?
Sure. They can do that to get pain killers tooEither way, people could just go to doctors they know would give them the answer they want.
Jerry said:Well, I didn't speak of laws forbidding breeding.
However, could you give a constitutional example of why a couple should not be prevented from breeding?
Jerry said:Well, I didn't speak of laws forbidding breeding.
However, could you give a constitutional example of why a couple should not be prevented from breeding?
This case touches a sensitive and important area of human rights. Oklahoma deprives certain individuals of a right which is basic to the perpetuation of a race-the right to have offspring.
We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.
I wasn't speaking of creating 'separate classes of citizens' either.
If such a statute is to vague or to cumbersome, it will be over-ruled by SCOTUS just as R-W brushed aside bland Texas anti-abortion statutes on those grounds.
star2589 said:it would be possible to do on the state level, but not the federal level because that power is not granted to the congress in the constitution.
RightatNYU said:No, the 14th Amendment means that the state cannot infringe on constitutional rights anymore than the feds can.
Captain America said:Wouldn't bother me or my wife a bit. We are not threatened by homosexuality in the least. We are quite comfortable being hetrosexuals. We do not require a law keeping us that way.
Jerry said:SWould it affect your relationship with other people?
Yes.
I can not refer to a man's legal male spouse as a husband, nor a woman's legal female spouse as a wife, as that, when compared to objective truth, would be a lie.
That may create tensions with people.
It comes down to tact. I'll just have to learn more of it. However, unless I completely comply with every popular idea forced upon me I'll be labeled and defamed. That is, after all, the third step in propagandizing an issue: Label all those left who refuse to comply.
My wife and I would not look at the further legitimizing of the tradition from which our marriage comes and choose to divorce. That would be illogical beyond compare.
zymurgy said:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
In order to have 27 states ratify the Fourteenth Amendment, it was necessary to count those states which had first rejected and then under the duress of military occupation had ratified, and then also to count those states which initially ratified but subsequently rejected the proposal.
I mean come on, how crooked is that?
ProudAmerican said:I think a better question is, why does it have to negatively affect my marraige in order for me to be against it?
Look west out a window from where you are right now. Look way up in the sky. Hopefully it's a clear day where you are so that you can see the shrapnel and smoke trail as my argument falls to the earth having been thoroughly blown out of the sky :2wave:RightatNYU said:You said that the legislature could create laws that would prevent people from having children.
Sure. Skinner v. Oklahoma, for one.
This case establishes the right to procreate as a fundamental right. The only time the government can infringe on a fundamental right is in the case of an overwhelming compelling interest. In this case, sterilization, even for violent criminals, was outlawed. If preventing violent criminals from breeding is not compelling enough to warrant limiting the right, no psychological diagnosis will be.
You're proposing legislation that would infringe on the basic rights of citizens based on whether they were classified by an outside party to belong to a certain group. That is the exact same thing.
No, the statue would be over-ruled no matter what by even the most junior district court member. You can't pass a law that goes directly against precedent.
If I may....Gilluin said:Would you be willing to have your marriage annuled? If as you say you do not need a law to keep you that way.Captain America said:Wouldn't bother me or my wife a bit. We are not threatened by homosexuality in the least. We are quite comfortable being hetrosexuals. We do not require a law keeping us that way.
I wasn't speaking legally.Gilluin said:So why as a gay man am I forced legally to accept heterosexual marriage?
RightatNYU said:No, the 14th Amendment means that the state cannot infringe on constitutional rights anymore than the feds can.
star2589 said:breeding is not a constitutional right.
RightatNYU said:
When the law lays an unequal hand on those who have committed intrinsically the same quality of offense and sterilizes one and not the other, it has made as an invidious a discrimination as if it had selected a particular race or nationality for oppressive treatment. Yick Wo v. Hopkins, supra; Gaines v. Canada, 305 U.S. 337 , 59 S.Ct. 232. Sterilization of those who have thrice committed grand larceny with immunity for those who are embezzlers is a clear, pointed, unmistakable discrimination.
Jerry said:I wasn't speaking legally.
However, how are you being forced legally to accept stright 'marriage? Even if you were a cop or an employer you would only be required to tolerate heterosexual marriage, not accept it.
Jerry said:If I may....
If my 'marriage' were annulled tomorrow it would not affect my marital covenant between my wife and I. All it would mean is that we would have to file some paper work which, really, we should have anyway.
star2589 said:this is what the decision was based on. it had nothing to do with a constitutional right to breed, though a side note was later made about the importance of putting any such laws under strict scrutiny.
Gilluin said:Which in the state of virgina, come november, will not be recogised. The new costitutional amendment will stop all contracts between non married people and people of the same sex. So in the state of virgina no more wills, powers of attorney, business contracts, or any other legal contacts between any non married person or people of the same sex.
RightatNYU said:It doesnt. That's not the question the post is asking.
However, as a side note, if it doesn't affect your marriage, why do you oppose it?
ProudAmerican said:Ive gone into that in another thread. I dont oppose equal rights for everyone under the constitution regardless of sexual orientation. I simply oppose calling it "marraige"
gays should be afforded the same rights as everyone else.
RightatNYU said:Huh? It was a unanimous decision that in the majority opinion affirmed the constitutional right to procreate. It doesn't get much more clear cut than that.
I wonder if polygamists would say the same.....Gilluin said:The fact that I have to tolerate heterosexual marriage in any form while not being extended the same consideration is not acceptable.
It's not a matter of "allow" or "deny". If I am your employee then you are required to confirm my ID and file my W2. That's it. I can claim dependants I don't have, I can claim married when I'm single, etc. When the tax man comes to collect his due it will not then be your head put on a pike but mine.If I own a business I am legally compailed to allow you to file taxes as married.
One does not have to be married to take advantage of FMLA, but yes I know what you mean regarding the use of FMLA for a spouse.I am legally compailed to extend FMLA to you.
Who? Like Kelzie? Go say that to her face, figuratively speaking.Heterosexuals expect and demand that the world accept their marriages but are unwilling to accept gay marriage.
1. The difference between accepting and tolerating is objection. To accept is to let something be without objection or contestation. To tolerate is to let something be while objecting and with contestation.I say if I am not accepted I will not accept. I will accept only those that accept me.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?