# For anyone who doubts homophobia in this country... **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 18, 2000, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-anyone-who-doubts-homophobia-in-this-country/37450 "2000-10-18T19:50:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![oldscratch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ed655f/32.png) [@oldscratch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/oldscratch)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2000, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-anyone-who-doubts-homophobia-in-this-country/37450/21 "2000-10-18T23:44:28Z")
Lesseee? Majority denying rights it holds to a minority? Unfair? We will let you decide, in this next episode of “ **Lizard in the Pit** ” ---
**Author:** ![Lizard](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/dfb087/32.png) [@Lizard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lizard)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2000, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-anyone-who-doubts-homophobia-in-this-country/37450/22 "2000-10-18T23:47:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by oldscratch \* > \*\*Lesseee? Majority denying rights it holds to a minority? Unfair? We will let you decide, in this next episode of “ **Lizard in the Pit** ” \*\* **oldscratch** , read the WHOLE post. I specifically said marriage is NOT a right. And it isn’t. For gays OR straights. ---
**Author:** ![oldscratch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ed655f/32.png) [@oldscratch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/oldscratch)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2000, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-anyone-who-doubts-homophobia-in-this-country/37450/23 "2000-10-18T23:49:50Z")
_sigh_… I’m going to hold off on this one for right now… gotta things to see and people to do, however, I’m sure some legal experts can come in on this. However, it currently is a right for heterosexuals, and is not a right for homosexuals. Hence, a segment is being denied rights. Maybe some peope wanna come in with the constitutional aspects for Lizzie. ---
**Author:** ![Lizard](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/dfb087/32.png) [@Lizard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lizard)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2000, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-anyone-who-doubts-homophobia-in-this-country/37450/24 "2000-10-18T23:59:27Z")
Okay, now I’m sounding combative, which is not my intent. But what the hell. **oldscratch** marriage is NOT a right for ANYONE. It may be LEGAL for one group and not another, but that does NOT make it a “right.” It is NOT mentioned in the Constitutional, and no amount of legal imagination can find it there under some other name or clause. How else can you explain the Supreme Courts’ failure to strike down all the anti-gay-marriage laws mentioned above? Simple. Because the SP has no authority when the Constitution is wordless on a topic. And that is as it should be. That’s all I meant. ---
**Author:** ![Coldfire](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a587f6/32.png) [@Coldfire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Coldfire)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2000, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-anyone-who-doubts-homophobia-in-this-country/37450/25 "2000-10-19T00:01:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by iampunha \* > \*\*So what states do allow same-sex marriage? \*\* Although Esprix was partially right when he said “Scandinavia”, it was Denmark that pioneered gay marriages. The Netherlands followed about a year later, and currently, more European countries are working on comparable legislation. ---
**Author:** ![oldscratch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ed655f/32.png) [@oldscratch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/oldscratch)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2000, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-anyone-who-doubts-homophobia-in-this-country/37450/26 "2000-10-19T00:15:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Lizard \* > \*\* It is NOT mentioned in the Constitutional, \*\* Funny. Neither is abortion. ---
**Author:** ![oldscratch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ed655f/32.png) [@oldscratch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/oldscratch)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2000, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-anyone-who-doubts-homophobia-in-this-country/37450/27 "2000-10-19T00:17:29Z")
fuckinmotherfuckingpieceofshitbuttons. or small class sizes, or the right to be educated. Yet all of those have been ruled on by the supreme court. It’s a defacto right for heterosexual couples to get married. Whetehr it’s mentioned in the constitution or not, they have that right. That abillity. No one is ever going to take that away from them. It’s not like a fucking drivers licence. Homosexual couples do not. unfair? ---
**Author:** ![oldscratch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ed655f/32.png) [@oldscratch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/oldscratch)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2000, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-anyone-who-doubts-homophobia-in-this-country/37450/28 "2000-10-19T00:24:52Z")
I thought of somethign that might help you understand Lizard, sorry for the triple post. Imagine if you were denied a marriage licence because you were black and your fiance was white, that would be a violation of your right to marry someone regardless of race. That would violate the constitution. Of course, that doesn’t apply to sexual orientation. That is why it is unfair. Make sense? ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2000, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-anyone-who-doubts-homophobia-in-this-country/37450/29 "2000-10-19T00:37:34Z")
I read somewhere that the reason the government won’t legislate gay marriage is something about taxes and marriage tax laws. ---
**Author:** ![beakerxf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/bc79bd/32.png) [@beakerxf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beakerxf)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2000, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-anyone-who-doubts-homophobia-in-this-country/37450/30 "2000-10-19T01:40:23Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Lizard \* > Okay, now I’m sounding combative, which is not my intent. But what the hell. **oldscratch** marriage is NOT a right for ANYONE. It may be LEGAL for one group and not another, but that does NOT make it a “right.” It is NOT mentioned in the Constitutional, and no amount of legal imagination can find it there under some other name or clause. The Supreme Court has disagreed with that statement in at least one case. In [Loving vs. Virginia](http://www.ameasite.org/loving.html), the court stated: > [@](#): > > These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. > Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival. **Note: The case challenged Virginia’s Anti-Miscegenation Statute** > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Lizard \* > How else can you explain the Supreme Courts’ failure to strike down all the anti-gay-marriage laws mentioned above? Simple. Because the SP has no authority when the Constitution is wordless on a topic. And that is as it should be. That’s all I meant. The Supreme Court hasn’t failed to do anything, the matter simply has been challenged in their court before. It has only, thus far, been brought before state courts. In Vermont, the court found in favor of same-sex couples. In Hawaii, the court wrote that they would have found in favor of the couples (based on gender discrimination laws), but a new admendment tied their hands. They however indicated how they might have ruled. Taken from [Lambda Legal: Baehr v. Anderson Case History](http://www.lambdalegal.org/cgi-bin/pages/documents/record?record=48) > [@](#): > > [The court] lets stand its 1993 decision that the denial of the freedom to marry is sex discrimination. > > Lets stand Hawaii First Circuit Judge Kevin S. C. Chang’s 1996 decision that the state has no legitimate reason for excluding same-sex couples from civil marriage. > > Leaves the door open to a future case to seek the protections, benefits, and responsibilities that come with civil marriage (the court suggests that the amendment only > exempts the issuance of marriage licenses from constitutional scrutiny). As far as I know, all these state DOMA’s are not constitutional amendments, so there is still the possibilty that they will be challenged at a state supreme court level. How well these challenges will do? I don’t know. ---
**Author:** ![porcupine](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ac91a4/32.png) [@porcupine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/porcupine)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2000, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-anyone-who-doubts-homophobia-in-this-country/37450/31 "2000-10-19T01:46:11Z")
**Lizard** Last time I checked the United States form of government was a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy. You know, otherwise there’s that whole “tyranny of the majority” problem. ---
**Author:** ![Lux\_Fiat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/bc79bd/32.png) [@Lux\_Fiat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lux_Fiat)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2000, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-anyone-who-doubts-homophobia-in-this-country/37450/32 "2000-10-19T02:12:56Z")
> [@](#): > > …but doesn’t it take nothing short of a Constitutional amendment to get around the `Full Faith and Credit’ clause of the Constitution? The federal DOMA flies so ridiculously in the face of the “Full Faith and Credit” clause (at least to my admittedly untrained eye), I think that’s how a lot of the more craven legislators, not to mention the President, justified passing it. When it gets to the Supreme Court, presumably it’ll be challenged under that clause. And porcupine said what I was going to say about democracy. ---
**Author:** ![Kricket](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/f14d63/32.png) [@Kricket](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kricket)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2000, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-anyone-who-doubts-homophobia-in-this-country/37450/33 "2000-10-19T02:14:59Z")
Damn, remind me never to piss off Nachos4sarah! Okay just a question here. When when a majority votes their consience it’s called Democracy right? Then isn’t Democracy just a fancy way of imposing ones oppinions? Don’t flame me for that, I don’t understand politics at all, but from my point of view that is what I came away with. ---
**Author:** ![johnson](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@johnson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/johnson)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2000, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-anyone-who-doubts-homophobia-in-this-country/37450/34 "2000-10-19T02:26:34Z")
[straying yet further off topic] > [@](#): > > The federal DOMA flies so ridiculously in the face of the “Full Faith and Credit” clause Most of what Congress does strays extraordinarily far from any reasonable interpretation of “regulating interstate commerce.” The federal system has slowly withered on the vine. [/straying][edging back to topic] And in our system, **the majority does rule** , subject to constraints. When public sympathy is roused, the courts or legislatures are moved to protect the rights of the minority. Arguably, either of these bodies have moved ahead of public opinion (though it seems very unlikely we’ll see this from legislators at any time in the near future). [/edging][on topic] I have no doubt that, in time, civil unions or gay marriages will become protected under the Constitution, only because in time, the majority of the populace will tire of the fight and/or have no objection. And **andros** , I’m just suggesting to **Eve** that tolerance should be promoted because I suspect it’s the only way to short-circuit much of civil conflict today. ---
**Author:** ![Nacho4Sara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Nacho4Sara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nacho4Sara)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2000, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-anyone-who-doubts-homophobia-in-this-country/37450/35 "2000-10-19T03:03:54Z")
Well, sorry about my typos but I was pissed and in a rush when I typed that up. And I’m sure you can find it in your heart to forgive me. Just be tolerant of those with typing problems, ok? > [@](#): > > And in our system, the majority does rule, subject to constraints. When public sympathy is roused, the courts or legislatures are moved to protect the rights of the minority. Arguably, either of these bodies have moved ahead of public opinion (though it seems very unlikely we’ll see this from legislators at any time in the near future). What really pisses me off about this whole situation is that this problem will not be solved quickly, maybe not even in my lifetime. We all have been guaranteed by right of our birth that the gov’t will “establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves.” If you seperate church from state, moral judgement from justice, then we are all equal under the Constitution. It is religious dogma that leads so “amoral,” “immoral” and other labels. These labels prevent justice. The Consitution does not say “we will provide for your welfare and domestic tranquility if you are heterosexual.” Does it? nope. It is religious rhetoric that leads to this presumption. And hey, how about this winner from Amendment XIV: > [@](#): > > 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. Well now, could the State, by refusing to legalize gay marriages and even proposing legislation against it, be depriving many people of liberty and prosperity? Just wondering. It looks to me as though the Supreme Court’s intervention is needed. (I am so glad I saved my Amer.Pol. books). I simply do NOT understand why it is so hard for people to: 1. Seperate church and state, and 2. Acknowledge that homosexuals are people with rights too. You know, when we enslaved blacks because of the color of their skin, it was deemed unconstitutional by Amendment XV. Now we are not enslaving gays, but we are reducing their rights because of something they were born with. It seems to me that this is wrong by the standards of any religion or gov’t. And finally, I truly believe that if we held an election, similar to a presidential election, in which people voted for or against gay marriages, this problem would be nonexistent. In my experiance, there are simply too many people who either do not care or who feel strongly in favor of gay marriages that they would outvote the opposition. Much of this “opposition” comes from leaders of churchs, not followers (as evidenced in the “Mormons and Gays” thread.) People go to church, the church tells them what to believe, they kneel, hallelujah Amen. But that does not mean the followers echo every sentiment of the church. Mormons have gay friends, Catholics have pre-marital sex. Of course, I am from a fairly liberal area and while I am not gay, many of my friends are. PS I apologize for any generalizations. I am not an expert on law or politics or religion, so I tried my best. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2000, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-anyone-who-doubts-homophobia-in-this-country/37450/36 "2000-10-19T03:57:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by oldscratch \* > \*\*THere is a quite usefull aspect to marriage. Immigration. I’m curious how you would incorporate that into your solution? \*\* You’ll have to be a little more specific. I am **strongly** for an aggressive, liberal immigration policy, so if deregulating marriage means we have to be a little more loose on who gets to immigrate, I have no problem with that. But I might be misinterpreting your point, so could you elucidate a bit? ---
**Author:** ![beakerxf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/bc79bd/32.png) [@beakerxf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beakerxf)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2000, 5:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-anyone-who-doubts-homophobia-in-this-country/37450/37 "2000-10-19T05:48:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RickJay \* > You’ll have to be a little more specific. I am **strongly** for an aggressive, liberal immigration policy, so if deregulating marriage means we have to be a little more loose on who gets to immigrate, I have no problem with that. But I might be misinterpreting your point, so could you elucidate a bit? I’ll stick my nose and assume oldscratch was referring to the idea that same sex marriage/civil unions/whatever seem like the the best route for international couples. There was a bill up for vote this year that would have giving immigration rights to same sex partners. IIRC it had a grand total of 28 sponsors and died a quick and painless death in Congress. I’m positive that things will change eventually, there is only so long we can resist the world trend. I just hope I can live long enough to see it. ---
**Author:** ![Byzantine](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/dfb087/32.png) [@Byzantine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Byzantine)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2000, 7:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-anyone-who-doubts-homophobia-in-this-country/37450/38 "2000-10-19T07:00:58Z")
Doubts it? Didn’t my state copyright it? Utah, you know… if nothing else we seem to corner the market on homophobia… And, some in Utah go out of their way to provide money to OTHER states to make sure no “gay stuff” starts up anywhere else… But that’s them not me… It’d be damn funny for me to be a homophobe, being that I’m bi… am I surprised by this? No. Does it make me want to projectile vomit into the very heart of Temple Square? Yes. Is this an issue that’s going to change? Yes. As time goes on, and as more and more people wake up and smell the coffee (or other caffeine infused drinks) you are going to see changes. But it starts with you. YOU have amazing power in your fingertips. VOTE. Make your voice heard. The more people, the “fringe” people who get out there and vote the more we are going to see the dissemination of the “moral majority”. Which, hey, let’s be honest. In this day and age they are not “moral” or a “majority”. So, VOTE. If you want someone else to tell you what to do, move back in with your parents. Esprix – sorry, hon, I’ll turn the soap box back over to you now that I’ve spewed… 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![SPOOFE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@SPOOFE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SPOOFE)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2000, 7:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-anyone-who-doubts-homophobia-in-this-country/37450/39 "2000-10-19T07:21:36Z")
> [@](#): > > Actually SPOOFE, when a majority of the populace votes their conscience it’s not called “imposing their beliefs.” In most places it’s called “democracy.” My apologies. I wasn’t referring only to the process of election, I was referring to the entire process of campaigning, putting up advertisements, proposition legislation… propaganda, that sort of thing. Then the “anti-issue” rallies, the fear tactics used by (thankfully) the minority of people who oppose gay rights. You’ve seen the now-infamous “God hates fags” signs on the news, right? That seems like “imposing their beliefs” to me. ---
**Author:** ![Typo\_Negative](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/typo_negative/32/484_2.png) [@Typo\_Negative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Negative)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2000, 8:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-anyone-who-doubts-homophobia-in-this-country/37450/40 "2000-10-19T08:22:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RickJay \* > \*\*I’ve got a better solution; Let’s get rid of marriage as a legal institution. Completely eliminate it. If people want to get married, terrific; they can hold ceremonies and make vows and hold them in churches and whatever, but why should the state have any part of it? > The logical solution is to completely revisit the concept. Take marriage off the lawbooks. \*\* Amen, brother! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-anyone-who-doubts-homophobia-in-this-country/37450.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-anyone-who-doubts-homophobia-in-this-country/37450.md?page=3)