# "It's open season on gay people in this country." **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 3, 2004, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-open-season-on-gay-people-in-this-country/272865 "2004-11-03T22:57:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![spectrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9fc29f/32.png) [@spectrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spectrum)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2004, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-open-season-on-gay-people-in-this-country/272865/61 "2004-11-04T19:23:50Z")
Oh look, another bigot comparing gays and lesbians to animals. ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2004, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-open-season-on-gay-people-in-this-country/272865/62 "2004-11-04T19:31:52Z")
> [@Huerta88](#): > > Wrong, but consistent as far as the shrill hysterics. I guess that kind of consistency is a virtue. > > George Bush does not favor marriage between dogs and cats (probably true). He supported a law that would halt expansion of dog and cat unions (not yet, but I’m assuming he would if such a hitherto-unimaginable scenario were seriously proposed). Ergo, it’s not that long of a step to saying that GWB wants to round up and get rid of dogs and cats. Uh, yeah, it is. > > Look, I know that some people revel in the dramatic pose of would-be martyr (bonus – without having to go through the actual martyrdom part). So I don’t try too hard to stop the theatrical types from shrieking and having a conniption. I just don’t think that such silliness can be the basis for serious political discussion, anymore than I think _La Cage_ has much to tell us about the tax code. More simply put: if you think GWB is personally “fanatical” on this issue, I think you’re simply wrong. I’ve seen NO evidence that he spends any substantial portion of his time worrying about homosexuality, other than as a political problem. If his base were Rockefeller Republicans (such as those he’s met throughout his life as a Yalie and the son of privilege), I have no doubt he’d feel comfortable doing and saying absolutely nothing; in the WASP world where he grew up, not only is an urbane inidifference to personal peccadillos de rigeur, there’s a long tradition (as in English public schools) of “youthful experimentation” that makes it uncouth to call to much attention to sodomy or any evils that the fire and brimstone lower class may associate with it. The man did not go to Bob Jones, and even his midlife conversion was to what as far as I can tell is a more suburban, touchy-feely Methodism than to the more rigid variety of Methodist or Southern Baptist. Fanatical? One of the biggest criticisms is that the guy doesn’t feel strongly about anything. His daughters hang out in PR and fashion circles, presumably with his approval. If dad were a raving “fanatic” on this subject, would they be attending the “wedding” of their “eyebrow waxer” (I think I got this right) on Fire Island, in the middle of a campaign year, given that they’ve volunteered to do anything they can to help his campaign? Bush has a constituency that overwhelmingly does not approve of “gay marriage.” He can either ignore his base and sabotage his election prospects, or give his base his token support by opposing further expansion of rights never before recognized. Neither course indicates a personal fanaticism that I just don’t see, based on the facts. ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2004, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-open-season-on-gay-people-in-this-country/272865/63 "2004-11-04T19:36:02Z")
> [@spectrum](#): > > Oh look, another bigot comparing gays and lesbians to animals. You know, I really didn’t think the principles of logical analogy required spelling out, but I’ve been wrong before. For animals, just to walk you through it step by step, read “people.” For “cats” read “a first particular sex of people.” For dogs, read “a second particular set of people.” Complete allegory/analogy. You’ve just sweepingly demonstrated the utter bigotry of Aesop, that swine. No, wait a minute, that’s even more bigoted! I meant . . . ---
**Author:** ![BlueGarden](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/3ab097/32.png) [@BlueGarden](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BlueGarden)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2004, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-open-season-on-gay-people-in-this-country/272865/64 "2004-11-04T20:13:58Z")
> [@Cisco](#): > > Where do you suggest that he or she finds these magical wonder-people? I have a **SHITLOAD** of offline friends, co-workers, former co-workers, and acquaintences, and only 3 of them (my girlfriend, my brother, and one of my gay friends), excluding me, are against the gay marriage ban. > > Everyone else I know - _including other gay people :eek:_ - is either for it or has no opinion. > > One of the biggest Bush supporters I know is gay. I don’t get it, I don’t agree with it, but you can’t really hide from it. With a voice 60 million strong, “get new friends” is not really a viable option. > > ☹ If I dumped friends because we disagree on something I would be friendless… or bored out of my mind from hanging around with clones. I don’t agree with them on this issue and several others but for the most part our core values match. We’ve held each other’s hands through bad times, and celebrated the good times together. Sometimes you have to agree to disagree and move on to the next topic. oh, and I’m a she. ---
**Author:** ![BlueGarden](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/3ab097/32.png) [@BlueGarden](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BlueGarden)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2004, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-open-season-on-gay-people-in-this-country/272865/65 "2004-11-04T20:17:22Z")
> [@erislover](#): > > Please move to Massachusetts. Should it come to a vote for a state constitutional amendment, you’ll help us defeat it and send the message that our court was _right_ about what “equal rights” means and wasn’t “legislating from the bench”. > > It’s a beautiful state with plenty of history and cultural flavor. The MA SC took a pre-emptive strike on bigotry and isn’t going to flip-flop based on the rest of the states’ opinions. We have republican governors for any gays who don’t like democrats. > > Come one, come all. The water is warm[sup]\*[/sup]. > > \*[sub]Water not warm January through December. Void where prohibited. No purchase necessary.[/sub] Well, you do have Salem! That’s a big plus. Don’t you have cold winters? BRRRRRR!!! I’ll think about it. (were you even talking to me?) ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2004, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-open-season-on-gay-people-in-this-country/272865/66 "2004-11-04T21:20:22Z")
> [@BlueGarden](#): > > If I dumped friends because we disagree on something I would be friendless… or bored out of my mind from hanging around with clones. I don’t agree with them on this issue and several others but for the most part our core values match. We’ve held each other’s hands through bad times, and celebrated the good times together. Sometimes you have to agree to disagree and move on to the next topic. > oh, and I’m a she. I agree, er, except the part about me being a she! 😃 ---
**Author:** ![KellyM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/57b2e6/32.png) [@KellyM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyM)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2004, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-open-season-on-gay-people-in-this-country/272865/67 "2004-11-06T23:25:18Z")
> [@tracer](#): > > I thought post-operative transexuals in the U.S. were legally considered to be the same gender as their post-op sex, and could legally marry as such. Have I been misled? Yes, you have been misled. So far, Texas, Kansas, and Florida have all determined that a post-op is legally the same gender they were assigned at birth. Only New Jersey has affirmed the right of a post-op to marry as a member of their reassigned sex. In the other 46 states, it’s still a crapshoot. ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2004, 7:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-open-season-on-gay-people-in-this-country/272865/68 "2004-11-07T07:06:54Z")
> [@faithfool](#): > > Thanks **John**. I don’t know what else to say except damn. I think I’ll take a break from the 'net for a while. It’s just making my head hurt and my heart break. ☹ ## Fear not, friend. **John Mace** is wrong. State judges are required to swear ( or affirm ) to uphold the Constitution of the United States and not just their own state constitution. ( See [Article 6](http://www.midnightbeach.com/jon/US-Constitution.htm#6) ). Just because the federal courts refuse to hear a challenge to the bans they can still be overturned by state judges. Perhaps by applying the equal protection clause of the [14th Amendment](http://www.midnightbeach.com/jon/US-Constitution.htm#A14). ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2004, 8:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-open-season-on-gay-people-in-this-country/272865/69 "2004-11-07T08:23:32Z")
> [@spectrum](#): > > Bush lied when he said he favors civil unions. His bigot amendment would have banned all civil unions in all states. Text of the “Federal Marriage Amendment” > [@](#): > > Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups. Read the second sentence carefully. It has to do with judicial interpretations (“shall be construed to require”) of existing statutes. While the amendment does prohibit same-sex “marriages” anywhere in the United States, it does not prohibit individual states from passing laws to allow same-sex civil unions (“or the legal incidents thereof”). ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2004, 8:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-open-season-on-gay-people-in-this-country/272865/70 "2004-11-07T08:36:56Z")
> [@spectrum](#): > > 100% RATING FROM THE HUMAN RIGHTS CAMPAIGN - KERRY’ A gay rights organization gives its _100%_ rating to someone who not only opposes gay marriage, but has said he would support an amendment to the Massachusetts constitution to prohibit it? Must be some of them self-hatin’ gays at the HRC! ---
**Author:** ![OtakuLoki](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ac8455/32.png) [@OtakuLoki](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OtakuLoki)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2004, 9:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-open-season-on-gay-people-in-this-country/272865/71 "2004-11-07T09:12:10Z")
> [@NotWithoutRage](#): > > Yeah, okay. > > Attention all black people in the 1860s: You used to be slaves, and now you’re free! And you have the right to own land! And vote! You’re currently doing better than you’ve ever done! Want the same (enforced) rights as the white man? DRAMA QUEENS. Actually, the immediately post-war years were pretty good for the freed slaves. It wasn’t til about 10 years later that Jim Crow really got going. Part of that, of course, was that the carpet baggers were intentionally using the black to punish the former rebels, rather than supporting equality for its own sake. I believe it was with the election of Ruther’fraud’ Hayes that the southern states really got into finding legislative means to oppress the former slaves. ---
**Author:** ![KellyM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/57b2e6/32.png) [@KellyM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyM)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2004, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-open-season-on-gay-people-in-this-country/272865/72 "2004-11-07T15:15:02Z")
> [@Walloon](#): > > Text of the "Federal Marriage Amendment"Read the second sentence carefully. It has to do with judicial interpretations (“shall be construed to require”) of existing statutes. While the amendment does prohibit same-sex “marriages” anywhere in the United States, it does not prohibit individual states from passing laws to allow same-sex civil unions (“or the legal incidents thereof”). It doesn’t prevent a state from passing such law, but it prevents any court in any state from enforcing such a law, because it prevents a state court from construing the law of the state so as to protect any rights granted under that law that would preserve an incident of marriage to a same sex relationship. No court can enforce a law without first construing it, even when the law is plainly clear. The Republicans who drafted that amendment know this; they have consistently lied about what “construe” means in order to leave the false impression that the Republican FMA does not eviscerate same-sex partner rights lock, stock, and barrel. It would defeat Vermont’s civil union law. It would destroy same-sex domestic partnership benefits in San Francisco, Chicago, and many other cities. It might even prevent a gay man from leaving his estate to his partner, depending on how far one takes “incidents of marriage”. Don’t listen to the Republican lies. Read the plain language of the proposed amendment in light of what the words actually mean, and not what the spin doctors tell you. ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2004, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-open-season-on-gay-people-in-this-country/272865/73 "2004-11-07T15:54:11Z")
> [@KellyM](#): > > It doesn’t prevent a state from passing such law, but it prevents any court in any state from enforcing such a law This is your interpretation opinion, just as I have an interpretation and opinion; some legal scholars agree with yours (feel free to reference them), some legal scholars agree with my interpretation. And some legal scholars have opinions that differ from both of us. But let us not confuse our opinion with fact. In the end, it would be for the courts to decide the meaning of the wording. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2004, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-open-season-on-gay-people-in-this-country/272865/74 "2004-11-07T15:58:14Z")
> [@faithfool](#): > > Logistical question: Can those bans be overruled as un-Constitutional? If so, my hope will lie in that happening very swiftly. If not, I’ll remain deeply ashamed. > [@John Mace](#): > > Some will be challenged, especially the ones which also banned civil unions as most states have a provision that ballot initiatives have to address one and only one issue. But the ballot initiatives actually WERE (state) constitutional amendments in most cases, so there’s no way to overrule them other than technicalities. I also doubt, based on what our resident lawyers have said, that the SCotUS would even take the case if someone tried to appeal to that body. They will leave it up to the states. > [@2sense](#): > > ## Fear not, friend. **John Mace** is wrong. State judges are required to swear ( or affirm ) to uphold the Constitution of the United States and not just their own state constitution. ( See [Article 6](http://www.midnightbeach.com/jon/US-Constitution.htm#6) ). Just because the federal courts refuse to hear a challenge to the bans they can still be overturned by state judges. Perhaps by applying the equal protection clause of the [14th Amendment](http://www.midnightbeach.com/jon/US-Constitution.htm#A14). True, **2sense**. But a state court that overturns a state amendment on federal grounds leaves itself open for appeal to the federal system. The Massachusetts Supreme Court’s decision was unappealable because they are the final authority on the meaning of state law in Massachusetts. Had they based their decision on the federal 14th Amendment, their decision could have been overturned (or affirmed) by the US Supreme Court. The Court has no binding precedent on this issue, but their dicta in _Lawrence_ explictly said that their rationale did not extend to permitting same-sex marriage, and most Court observers agree that the current Court would not be receptive to finding a right to same-sex marriage in the federal Constitution. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2004, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-open-season-on-gay-people-in-this-country/272865/75 "2004-11-07T16:00:25Z")
> [@Walloon](#): > > This is your interpretation opinion, just as I have an interpretation and opinion; some legal scholars agree with yours (feel free to reference them), some legal scholars agree with my interpretation. And some legal scholars have opinions that differ from both of us. But let us not confuse our opinion with fact. > > In the end, it would be for the courts to decide the meaning of the wording. If I had been assigned to draft this amendment, I might have included a clause that said, “Congress has the power to define ‘incidents of marriage’.” That would allow a detailed definition to be crafted. ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2004, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-open-season-on-gay-people-in-this-country/272865/76 "2004-11-07T16:08:47Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The Court has no binding precedent on this issue, but their dicta in _Lawrence_ explictly said that their rationale did not extend to permitting same-sex marriage, and most Court observers agree that the current Court would not be receptive to finding a right to same-sex marriage in the federal Constitution. Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t the dicta in Lawrence suggest only that the substantive due process rationale does not extend to permitting same-sex marriage? It would seem to me that any finding for same-sex marriage would be based on equal protection, not due process, as was the case in Massachusetts, Vermont, Hawaii, and Alaska, and that there’s nothing in Lawrence that would forestall an equal protection argument. This is, of course, not to say that the current SCOTUS is particularly likely to rule that the Constitution mandates same-sex marriage based on equal protection, but merely that there’s a coherent position on that side of the issue. ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2004, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-open-season-on-gay-people-in-this-country/272865/77 "2004-11-07T16:11:25Z")
> [@Walloon](#): > > This is your interpretation opinion, just as I have an interpretation and opinion; some legal scholars agree with yours (feel free to reference them), some legal scholars agree with my interpretation. And some legal scholars have opinions that differ from both of us. But let us not confuse our opinion with fact. > > In the end, it would be for the courts to decide the meaning of the wording. So what you’re saying is that the proposed amendment would still leave the issue up in the air for those activist judges to decide? 😕 ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2004, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-open-season-on-gay-people-in-this-country/272865/78 "2004-11-07T16:20:33Z")
From the majority opinion in _[Lawrence v. Texas](http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZS.html)_: > [@](#): > > _Bowers’_ deficiencies became even more apparent in the years following its announcement. . . _Casey, supra_, at 851 — which confirmed that the Due Process Clause protects personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education — and _Romer v. Evans_, 517 U.S. 620, 624 — which struck down class-based legislation directed at homosexuals — cast _Bowers’_ holding into even more doubt. ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2004, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-open-season-on-gay-people-in-this-country/272865/79 "2004-11-07T16:28:51Z")
> [@Gorsnak](#): > > So what you’re saying is that the proposed amendment would still leave the issue up in the air for those activist judges to decide? 😕 Obviously, the courts have the ability to interpret any wording in any legislation or constitutional amendment. Not just this one. But, in my _opinion_, the wording is not ambiguous. So, no, I do not think the proposed amendment (which, by the way, I strongly oppose) would leave the issue up in the air. Treating gays as second class citizens, and barring them from the basic right of marriage, even with “civil unions” thrown in as a consolation prize, is wrong. The courts long ago threw out “separate but equal” arguments when it came to race. ---
**Author:** ![KellyM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/57b2e6/32.png) [@KellyM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyM)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2004, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-open-season-on-gay-people-in-this-country/272865/80 "2004-11-07T16:31:49Z")
> [@Gorsnak](#): > > Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t the dicta in Lawrence suggest only that the substantive due process rationale does not extend to permitting same-sex marriage? It would seem to me that any finding for same-sex marriage would be based on equal protection, not due process, as was the case in Massachusetts, Vermont, Hawaii, and Alaska, and that there’s nothing in Lawrence that would forestall an equal protection argument. All of the cases you mention above were decided on state law grounds; that is, they are intepretations of that **state’s** constitutional protections of equal protection. Massachusetts and Hawaii explicitly adopted equal-rights amendments during the Seventies, and those amendments, which explicitly mandate equal treatment on the basis of gender, were the basis of the successful equal protection claims for same-sex marriage. (I don’t know what the situation is in Alaska and Vermont, as I haven’t researched the issue in those states.) The federal constitution has no comparable language, and it’s going to be much harder (read: essentially impossible) to rest an equal protection claim in the relatively weaker protection given by the Fourteenth Amendment. The only way that’s going to happen, IMO, is if we see a marked change in the political/philosophical composition of the Supreme Court, and with the recent election results I don’t see that happening for at least another twenty or thirty years. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-open-season-on-gay-people-in-this-country/272865.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-open-season-on-gay-people-in-this-country/272865.md?page=5)