Special Rights for Homosexuals? (1 Viewer)

[flip2]

In another thread, Brown Vs. Board of Education was cited.

I'm going to lay out an intentionally simplified analysis of the wrongs of racism and separation of ethnicities during the tumultuous pre-Civil Rights era versus the struggle of gay men and women of today.

-Are gay people only allowed to eat at the counters of diners and restaurants?

-Are gay people only allowed to drink from "gay water fountains"?

-Are gay people only allowed to use "gay public restrooms"?

-Are gay people not allowed to live in neighborhoods deemed only for straight individuals, couples, and families?

-Are gay people only confined to places of worship meant for gay people?

-Are gay people only allowed to work as cooks, ushers, waiters and waitresses, or babysitters for straight families?

-Are gay people not allowed into "straight nightclubs, bars, or other places of entertainment"?

-Are gay students forced to attend a school meant only for gay students? (In fact, there is one school in NY which was established, at the behest of the gay community, for only gay students, even though many of those students never felt threatened at the schools they previously attended.)

-Are gay people only allowed to sit in the back of the bus?

-Are gay people only allowed to drive certain "gay cars" and bought from a "gay section" of a car dealership?

-Are gay people as a group specifically stated in the Constitution as only being 3/5 of a person? (For all intents and purposes of this debate, let's assume the term "person" and not the Constitution's original printing of "man.")

Seperate but not equal? Really?

 

[shuamort]

-Are gay people only allowed to eat at the counters of diners and restaurants?

Nope.

-Are gay people only allowed to drink from "gay water fountains"?

Nope.

-Are gay people only allowed to use "gay public restrooms"?

Nope. (insert your own George Michael joke here)

-Are gay people not allowed to live in neighborhoods deemed only for straight individuals, couples, and families?

Nope. (but housing discrimination does exist and is legal in most parts).

-Are gay people only confined to places of worship meant for gay people?

Nope, (but some churches do not welcome gay folk. Either way, it's not the government's place to interfere).

-Are gay people only allowed to work as cooks, ushers, waiters and waitresses, or babysitters for straight families?

Nope, but there are places and positions where gay people cannot hold certain jobs. Teachers in some areas for instance. Of course, there aren't any legal protections on a federal level for being fired based on sexual orientation either.

-Are gay people not allowed into "straight nightclubs, bars, or other places of entertainment"?

I prefer to go to them instead actually. Gay bars kinda scare me.

-Are gay students forced to attend a school meant only for gay students? (In fact, there is one school in NY which was established, at the behest of the gay community, for only gay students, even though many of those students never felt threatened at the schools they previously attended.)

Nope. I thought the school in NY was silly, myself.

-Are gay people only allowed to sit in the back of the bus?

Nope

-Are gay people only allowed to drive certain "gay cars" and bought from a "gay section" of a car dealership?

Nope

-Are gay people as a group specifically stated in the Constitution as only being 3/5 of a person? (For all intents and purposes of this debate, let's assume the term "person" and not the Constitution's original printing of "man.")

Nope

Seperate but not equal? Really?

Exactly. There's a lot of whinging from the gay sector about laws and such. Of course, it's all apples and oranges. What blacks went through is different from what the American Japanese went through in WWII, which is different than what women went through for suffrage, which is different from... well, you get my point.

 

[shh!]

In another thread, Brown Vs. Board of Education was cited.

I'm going to lay out an intentionally simplified analysis of the wrongs of racism and separation of ethnicities during the tumultuous pre-Civil Rights era versus the struggle of gay men and women of today.

I think you forgot to ask whether gay people are allowed to marry whom they choose. As I remember it, interracial marriage was illegal prior to the civil rights era, so blacks (and whites for that matter) were not necessarily allowed to marry freely.

 

[JustineCredible]

I think you forgot to ask whether gay people are allowed to marry whom they choose. As I remember it, interracial marriage was illegal prior to the civil rights era, so blacks (and whites for that matter) were not necessarily allowed to marry freely.

Actually interracial marriage was struck down by "Loving vs. Virginia" while school segragation was struck down by "Brown vs. the Board of Education."

Neither case actually did anything about where blacks were forced to drink their water, eat their lunches or ride on the bus.
The Montgomery Bus Boycot is what started the whole civil rights movement in 1956. But it did not sqaush all civil rights problems for blacks.


Now, as far as gays/lesbians...there are still several states in which gays/lesbians can be fired simply for the presumption of their sexual orientation by an employer. Actually an employee doesn't even have to actually be gay for an employer to fire an employee for assuming he/she may by gay.

In those same states persons renting apartments, applying for home loans or even booking an hotel/motel room can be denied these by the landlord, real estate agent or reservationist thinking the person might be gay!

At the moment there are over 1,349 rights, liberties, protections and benefits attached to marriage, either directly or indirectly which all gays/lesbian are denied. Civil Unions are not the same because they do not afford these rights, liberties, protections and benefits...nor are they portable from state to state.
That non-portability and flat out denial of recognition on a federal level is the real problem.

 

[shh!]

,,, At the moment there are over 1,349 rights, liberties, protections and benefits attached to marriage, either directly or indirectly which all gays/lesbian are denied. Civil Unions are not the same because they do not afford these rights, liberties, protections and benefits...nor are they portable from state to state.
That non-portability and flat out denial of recognition on a federal level is the real problem.

I just wanted to clarify that we are basically making the same argument, but of course, you did so in much greater detail.

 

[flip2]

I think you forgot to ask whether gay people are allowed to marry whom they choose. As I remember it, interracial marriage was illegal prior to the civil rights era, so blacks (and whites for that matter) were not necessarily allowed to marry freely.

Are gay people not allowed to marry whom they choose?

Vermont= Legally state recognized civil unions, passed by legislation

Connecticut= Legally state recognized civil unions, passed by legislation

Massachusetts= Legally state recognized same-sex marriage, ordered by
state supreme court ruling

 

[shuamort]

Are gay people not allowed to marry whom they choose?

No.

Vermont= Legally state recognized civil unions, passed by legislation

Connecticut= Legally state recognized civil unions, passed by legislation

Massachusetts= Legally state recognized same-sex marriage, ordered by
state supreme court ruling

Of course, no other state has to recognize it. Which is most likely going to be found unconstitutional due to the fact it violates interstate full faith and credit. The federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) specifically states that the federal government will not recognize a same-sex relationship treated like a marriage. This means that, under the current law, parties to a civil union will not be able to qualify for any of the benefits and protections contained in the 1049 federal laws affecting the spousal relationship.

 

[flip2]

Now, as far as gays/lesbians...there are still several states in which gays/lesbians can be fired simply for the presumption of their sexual orientation by an employer. Actually an employee doesn't even have to actually be gay for an employer to fire an employee for assuming he/she may by gay.

In those same states persons renting apartments, applying for home loans or even booking an hotel/motel room can be denied these by the landlord, real estate agent or reservationist thinking the person might be gay!

At the moment there are over 1,349 rights, liberties, protections and benefits attached to marriage, either directly or indirectly which all gays/lesbian are denied. Civil Unions are not the same because they do not afford these rights, liberties, protections and benefits...nor are they portable from state to state.
That non-portability and flat out denial of recognition on a federal level is the real problem.

"No Fault" States. Although it mainly concerns insurance claims, I'd like to point out that within those participating states, employers can fire, deny access, acquisition, or approval for property, loans, rent, or employment for any reason without any explanation given to that person. To explicitly tag this as a problem for only the gay community is selective injustice to create sensationalism for that particular group from a flawed--but not failed--practice.

 

[flip2]

No.
Of course, no other state has to recognize it. Which is most likely going to be found unconstitutional due to the fact it violates interstate full faith and credit. The federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) specifically states that the federal government will not recognize a same-sex relationship treated like a marriage. This means that, under the current law, parties to a civil union will not be able to qualify for any of the benefits and protections contained in the 1049 federal laws affecting the spousal relationship.

Or that Massachusetts, Vermont, and Connecticut are found in violation of DOMA for allowing and recognizing same-sex marriage/civil unions.

Ah yes, the "Full Faith and Credit" Clause. Forcing the other states to recognize a same-sex spousal relationship that is not recognized by the non-participatory states to begin with--strengthened by DOMA--is, in the words of Johnnie Cochran, "an outrage." Because of DOMA, the 47 other states are federally protected and in good standing with the FF&C Clause.

"This ain't just a one-way street, and you ain't the only driver."
--Unknown

 

[shuamort]

Or that Massachusetts, Vermont, and Connecticut are found in violation of DOMA for allowing and recognizing same-sex marriage/civil unions.

Hunh? DOMA states:
"No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian
tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or
judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe
respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is
treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory,
possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such
relationship."

In other words, according to unconstitutional DOMA, the FF&C doesn't need to be recognized in this specialized case.

Ah yes, the "Full Faith and Credit" Clause. Forcing the other states to recognize a same-sex spousal relationship that is not recognized by the non-participatory states to begin with--strengthened by DOMA--is, in the words of Johnnie Cochran, "an outrage." Because of DOMA, the 47 other states are federally protected and in good standing with the FF&C Clause.

Johnnie Cochran is dead. So are the anti-miscegenations laws that were the raison d'être of Loving V. Virginia. The states that refused to accept interracial marriages were found in contempt of the constitution's FF&C law.

 

[shuamort]

"No Fault" States. Although it mainly concerns insurance claims, I'd like to point out that within those participating states, employers can fire, deny access, acquisition, or approval for property, loans, rent, or employment for any reason without any explanation given to that person. To explicitly tag this as a problem for only the gay community is selective injustice to create sensationalism for that particular group from a flawed--but not failed--practice.

Wrong. There is federal protection based on classes such as sex, marital status, religion, etc. Should an employer want to fire all of the women or blacks, they're gonna be in a heap o' legal trouble even if they are in a state with at-will employment.

 

[flip2]

Can the argument be made and agreed upon that the definition of marriage in the United States stems mainly from a religious source? And, interpretation of the term "marriage" varies person to person, state to state, and government to goverment?

And, that final judgement by the state and/or goverment institution is the greatest arbitor as it relates to rights, recognitions, and laws? And, from time to time, each state and/or goverment institution may revisit and reaffirm, reform, or rectify a decision on rights, recognitions, and laws made previously?

(In keeping with my intentionally simplified statements.)

I ask again, what prevents individuals who are gay from applying for a job or moving to a state or country in which special rights, privileges, and benefits are afforded to them?

 

[flip2]

Wrong. There is federal protection based on classes such as sex, marital status, religion, etc. Should an employer want to fire all of the women or blacks, they're gonna be in a heap o' legal trouble even if they are in a state with at-will employment.

Live in Texas? Live in Florida? An employer does not have to give reason in firing an employee. An employer can hide the fact that, for example, he hates women, blacks, or homosexuals. To get around that, he can use as a reason: I didn't like the way she wore her hair; I didn't like the cologne he was using; I didn't like the tone of his voice with the customers. The employer does not have to give those reasons, again, to the employee, but for reasons as to not be sued--one can assume--he can provide those reasons and state it as "affecting the sales of a product or profit of the business."

OR, the employer can even bring up a miniscule matter that arose between employees that may have occurred 2 years ago and use that as a reason to terminate. Disrupting the environment at work, or some bs answer. It happened to my Senior Lead 2 years ago. Our Director and Supervisors brought up an incident that occurred maybe, 3 months prior to his termination in which a subordinate and he were joking around; the "reason" was not given by the HR Manager to my Senior Lead, but was later found out by a source extremely close to the Director and HR Dept., who also revealed that my Senior Lead had worked "10 years long enough with the company." An attempt to sue was made by my ex-boss and his family, but because he filed too late and after he started receiving unemployment, it went nowhere and nothing was settled.

 

[shuamort]

Can the argument be made and agreed upon that the definition of marriage in the United States stems mainly from a religious source? And, interpretation of the term "marriage" varies person to person, state to state, and government to goverment?

Sure, you can argue that until the cows come home. Moo. They're home. The problem is that the definitions as they sit now are without religious necessity. My parents were not married by a church, a religion, or with any religious connotations. The secular marriage was a union of their love and a contract between two adults. That marriage is recognize by the state and country. Religion is an arbitrary fact that is getting piggy-backed on to an issue that it really has nothing to do with.

And, that final judgement by the state and/or goverment institution is the greatest arbitor as it relates to rights, recognitions, and laws? And, from time to time, each state and/or goverment institution may revisit and reaffirm, reform, or rectify a decision on rights, recognitions, and laws made previously?

Yes, but the trump card that is always played is the Constitution. If it violates the laws set forth by the Constitution, it cannot be a local law.

I ask again, what prevents individuals who are gay from applying for a job or moving to a state or country in which special rights, privileges, and benefits are afforded to them?

The same reason that all the Christians don't move to Jesusland and the Klan don't have a snowy white wonderland. The same reason that it was wrong to have a south that allowed slavery. The same reason that it was wrong to send Japanese folk to internment camps. The same reason that rights should be equal to all citizens under the constitution regardless of their location.

 

[shuamort]

Live in Texas? Live in Florida? An employer does not have to give reason in firing an employee. An employer can hide the fact that, for example, he hates women, blacks, or homosexuals. To get around that, he can use as a reason: I didn't like the way she wore her hair; I didn't like the cologne he was using; I didn't like the tone of his voice with the customers. The employer does not have to give those reasons, again, to the employee, but for reasons as to not be sued--one can assume--he can provide those reasons and state it as "affecting the sales of a product or profit of the business."

One employee will not be noticed. Should there be a pattern where all the women, blacks, protestants, who apply for a job and are turned down and/or have a job and are fired, the employer will be brought into scrutiny and if discrimination based on protected class is found, they will be found of breaking the law. Even in Texas. Even in Florida.

These are federal laws covered by the EEOC, Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the ADA, the ADEA, and the Civil Rights Act of 1991.

 

[flip2]

There is also a simpler solution: Establishing more private companies or organizations.

My fear is that by doing so, diversity dies.

 

[flip2]

One employee will not be noticed. Should there be a pattern where all the women, blacks, protestants, who apply for a job and are turned down and/or have a job and are fired, the employer will be brought into scrutiny and if discrimination based on protected class is found, they will be found of breaking the law. Even in Texas. Even in Florida.

These are federal laws covered by the EEOC, Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the ADA, the ADEA, and the Civil Rights Act of 1991.

In the hiring process, the same excuses--idiotic and ignorant as they may be--may be used by the hiring manager; some off-base excuse to cover the employer's disdain for aforementioned individuals that fall into a federally protected class. Employers know they cannot directly ask the applicant "Are you gay, we don't hire black women, etc."

You're right, if there is a pattern detected, an investigation should occur.

I have one sincere question, not to be mistaken as contention with your argument: In the Civil Rights Act of 1991, does it specifically state protection from discrimination for sexual orientation? What revisions are there, and when were these revisions made, if any?

 

[shuamort]

I have one sincere question, not to be mistaken as contention with your argument: In the Civil Rights Act of 1991, does it specifically state protection from discrimination for sexual orientation? What revisions are there, and when were these revisions made, if any?

As it sits now, there are no federal protections based on sexual orientation. Some states have it, some cities have it where the states do not.

 

[JustineCredible]

Are gay people not allowed to marry whom they choose?

Vermont= Legally state recognized civil unions, passed by legislation

Connecticut= Legally state recognized civil unions, passed by legislation

Massachusetts= Legally state recognized same-sex marriage, ordered by
state supreme court ruling

Show me where any of those "civil unions" or "gay marriage" laws include
Social Security Benefits;
Veterans' benefits;
Equal Taxation on a federal level of course;
Federal Civilian and Military Service Benefits;
Employment Benefits relating to marriage;
Immigration and Naturalization;
Trade, Commerce and Intelectual Property;
Financial disclosure and Conflict of interest protections;
Crimes and Family Violence protections;
Loans, Guarantees and Payments in Agriculture;
Federal Natural Resources and Related Laws...etc?

Oh, that's right...THEY DON'T!

Guess what? That is not equal...it's still seperate~!

 

[Pacridge]

Show me where any of those "civil unions" or "gay marriage" laws include
Social Security Benefits;
Veterans' benefits;
Equal Taxation on a federal level of course;
Federal Civilian and Military Service Benefits;
Employment Benefits relating to marriage;
Immigration and Naturalization;
Trade, Commerce and Intelectual Property;
Financial disclosure and Conflict of interest protections;
Crimes and Family Violence protections;
Loans, Guarantees and Payments in Agriculture;
Federal Natural Resources and Related Laws...etc?

Oh, that's right...THEY DON'T!

Guess what? That is not equal...it's still seperate~!

I'm really uneducated about this I guess. I thought that was the point of civil unions- to allow these benefits. So you're saying the civil union laws being proposed by states, such as mine- Oregon, don't bestowed these benefits?

 

[shuamort]

I'm really uneducated about this I guess. I thought that was the point of civil unions- to allow these benefits. So you're saying the civil union laws being proposed by states, such as mine- Oregon, don't bestowed these benefits?

Nope, those are federal benefits and the US Gov't doesn't recognize civil unions or Massachusett's (gay) marriages for the matter.

 

[Pacridge]

Nope, those are federal benefits and the US Gov't doesn't recognize civil unions or Massachusett's (gay) marriages for the matter.

Well then I believe that to be complete BS.

 

[JustineCredible]

I'm really uneducated about this I guess. I thought that was the point of civil unions- to allow these benefits. So you're saying the civil union laws being proposed by states, such as mine- Oregon, don't bestowed these benefits?

Nope, not a one. These benefits can ONLY be afforded by the Federal Government, not state. Every one of those I listed are Federal Benefits.

Well then I believe that to be complete BS.

Now do you have a better understanding why we (the GLBT movement) keep insisting that "seperate but equal is NOT equal?"


BTW: Mass, Vt and any other state the happens to grant either "Civil Unions" or even a state "Marriage" to gays, those unions do not have to be recognized by any other state. So if a gay couple from, say Mississippi, were to go to Mass and obtain a marriage linsence but then they return to Mississippi, their state of residence does not have to recognize their union at all. As far as their state of residence is concerned, those two are still no better than complete strangers in the eyes of their state's laws.

 

[Pacridge]

Nope, not a one. These benefits can ONLY be afforded by the Federal Government, not state. Every one of those I listed are Federal Benefits.




Now do you have a better understanding why we (the GLBT movement) keep insisting that "seperate but equal is NOT equal?"

I completely understand now. I'm on your side, I'm not gay (not that there's anything wrong with that- as Jerry would say) but I certainly believe marriage is a right not a privilege. A right ALL of our citizens should be allowed. And I don't buy this BS argument of the "right" where they claim gays have the right to get married as long as the marry a member of the opposite sex. People should be allowed to marry and live with the person they choose and love.

 

[JustineCredible]

I completely understand now. I'm on your side, I'm not gay (not that there's anything wrong with that- as Jerry would say) but I certainly believe marriage is a right not a privilege. A right ALL of our citizens should be allowed. And I don't buy this BS argument of the "right" where they claim gays have the right to get married as long as the marry a member of the opposite sex. People should be allowed to marry and live with the person they choose and love.

Pacridge, thank you. All support is good support.
What's funny is the whole BS the "right-wingnuts" push that "redefining" marriage is somehow a new concept and that in doing so would somehow threaten or endanger "traditional" marriages. (Traditional meaning Straight marriages)
My all too straight brother always says; "How would it threaten or change my marriage to my wife if my sister were to marry her partner? Well unless she planned on marrying my wife, there wouldn't be any threat at all."