Nope.flip2 said:-Are gay people only allowed to eat at the counters of diners and restaurants?
Nope.flip2 said:-Are gay people only allowed to drink from "gay water fountains"?
Nope. (insert your own George Michael joke here)flip2 said:-Are gay people only allowed to use "gay public restrooms"?
Nope. (but housing discrimination does exist and is legal in most parts).flip2 said:-Are gay people not allowed to live in neighborhoods deemed only for straight individuals, couples, and families?
Nope, (but some churches do not welcome gay folk. Either way, it's not the government's place to interfere).flip2 said:-Are gay people only confined to places of worship meant for gay people?
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.flip2 said:-Are gay people only allowed to work as cooks, ushers, waiters and waitresses, or babysitters for straight families?
I prefer to go to them instead actually. Gay bars kinda scare me.flip2 said:-Are gay people not allowed into "straight nightclubs, bars, or other places of entertainment"?
Nope. I thought the school in NY was silly, myself.flip2 said:-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.)
Nopeflip2 said:-Are gay people only allowed to sit in the back of the bus?
flip2 said:-Are gay people only allowed to drive certain "gay cars" and bought from a "gay section" of a car dealership?
Nopeflip2 said:-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.")
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.flip2 said:Seperate but not equal? Really?
flip2 said: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.
shh! said: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 said:,,, 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! said: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.
No.flip2 said:Are gay people not allowed to marry whom they choose?
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 said: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
JustineCredible said: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.
shuamort said: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.
Hunh? DOMA states:flip2 said:Or that Massachusetts, Vermont, and Connecticut are found in violation of DOMA for allowing and recognizing same-sex marriage/civil unions.
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.flip2 said: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.
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 said:"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.
shuamort said: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.
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.flip2 said: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?
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.flip2 said: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?
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.flip2 said: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?
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.flip2 said: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."
shuamort said: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.
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.flip2 said: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?
flip2 said: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
JustineCredible said: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~!
Nope, those are federal benefits and the US Gov't doesn't recognize civil unions or Massachusett's (gay) marriages for the matter.Pacridge said: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 said:Nope, those are federal benefits and the US Gov't doesn't recognize civil unions or Massachusett's (gay) marriages for the matter.
Pacridge said: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?
Pacridge said:Well then I believe that to be complete BS.
JustineCredible said: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?"
Pacridge said: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.
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?