If you think that is what I was doing, you are mistaken. I was using it as an example of what EP means. If you aren’t referring to me, then oops, I should shut up now.
Yeah, I think there are a few differences, but I’m not sure what they are. It’s certainly better than nothing, but still falls short of actual marriage. Plus there is the stigma (if you will) of calling to something different which sets people apart.
On a practical level, I do think it might be the right way to go. Take that step first, which many anti-SSM people are OK with, and then as more and more people become comfortable with the notion, go for the real thing.
My main problem with civil unions comes with the idea of federal and international recognition. While at the moment the federal government does not recognize same sex marriages, I think it will be much easier for them long term to treat civil unions differently from marriages. If same sex marriage is legal in many states, and it becomes apparent that gay people are just as shit as being married as straight people, no better or worse, it will be much harder for the federal government to continue discrimination. It would also make an equal protection argument easier, I think.
This brings up another interesting question: what is the legal definition of “family” and “a family”?
Not you specifically. Just had seen it bandied about. I do not think it is an appropriate analogy/example.
Borders on the absurd how? Seriously.
I am not reading “homosexual marriage” in between the lines of the Constitution. I am reading “we do not discriminate in our laws against any group” in the Constitution. That we needed an Amendment specifically to ban slavery is stunning. That we needed a special Amendment to allow women to vote is amazing. I do not think we needed to specify whole new Amendments to change those things. I think the language already exists. Indeed I see the Equal Protection clause written as broadly as it is specifically to say, essentially, “We are not restricting this to particular groups because we feel ALL Americans should enjoy equal protection under the law.”
I don’t personally find the reasons to be compelling, but many courts do. There’s been some steady progress, obviously, but we’re not all there yet.
Not unilaterally. But I also wouldn’t make age an arbitrary determining factor for those. There’s no magic age at which people suddenly become capable of certain things; development is unique to each individual. And there’s plenty of people far above the age of majority that I wouldn’t trust with the responsibility for those things. I think testing / licensing /education is a better determining criteria than a magic number.
Well then you are consistent at least, and I agree with you on that point. I can’t think of any good examples beyond that, but I imagine that if same sex and multiple marriages pass the test in the future, there will be some new frontier of minority relationships that becomes the new watershed.
A clarification – I’m not advocating an amendment to grant homosexuals the right to marry.
However, I am saying that any constitutional amendment specifically *denying *them the right to marry is what’s absurd. That right there is persecuting them for what they are and not what they do.
Secondly. Since when do our representatives have a right to legislate what two people - whatever gender - do to each other when they’re fucking? And how are those “activities” even an issue regarding our collective interest?
I guess you didn’t read Bricker’s post. Equal protection doesn’t mean that no “group” can be discriminated against. Drunk drivers and litterers are discriminated against all of the time.
When using a 14th amendment “equal protection” argument, you have to be like Scalia and use the intention of the authors of the amendment…
Drunk drivers and litterers are discriminated against because the drive drunk and litter. For what reason are homosexuals being discriminated against? Homosexualing?
Having homosexual sex. It is not a protected activity. Right or wrong, it isn’t.
Now, post-Lawrence, it isn’t illegal. In California, you can get a civil union. You just can’t have the word “marriage” tied to it.
You can suck, fuck, and fondle each other; be recognized as partners under the law. But not be called “married”.
I’m sure that the authors of the 14th amendment would be rolling over in their graves if they knew that their language would be used to try to justify homosexual marriage…
I’m sure too. Because it was 232 years ago. They owned slaves ferchrissakes. Things change.
Oh, 14th amendment, not the constitution. Still it was 142 years ago. Still not a hot-bed of enlightenment in regards to homosexuality.
I’m sure, too. I just don’t attach any significance to that. They’re dead. They’ve been dead for more than 100 years. They’d probably be turning in their graves that people watch the devilbox that traps people inside for entertainment.
I read it just fine and find that a bullshit comparison.
Read my post again:
“1. The groups’ characteristics are immutable. (Race, national origin)
2. The group shares a history of discrimination.
3. The group is politically impotent.
4. The group is a discrete and insular minority.”
Certainly drunk drivers fail on point 1 & 4.
Also, there is definitely a compelling state interest in penalizing drunk driving and litterers. They are harming others via their actions.
Interracial marriage would probably make them spin in their graves as well. Maybe the courts should revisit miscegenation because some long dead people would be upset their laws were allowed to be used for such a thing.
This is a frustrating thread for me – first, because I agree that same-sex marriage should be legal, and second because it appears there’s not really a genuine desire to understand the answer to the question posed in the OP.
The answer to: “Why aren’t homosexuals a ‘Suspect Class?’” is because the current case law that provides a framework for Equal Protection analysis does not lead to a different conclusion. The responses to this boil down to, “But it should, because that’s a just and correct result!”
This I don’t believe. More specifically, I believe it’s just and fair, but I don’t believe that the Constitution should be construed to say: “Always reach the just and fair result.”
Sounds crazy, I know. But the problem is that federal judges create binding precedent and serve unelected, lifetime appointments. If a federal judge believes it’s just and fair to protect the lives of all unborn children, suddenly this approach’s flaws become starkly obvious.
The judge’s mandate should be to put into effect the words. If we don’t like the words, we should change them via the legislature.
While I go for the “just” result I think I did address the legalities of the matter and not just apply wishful thinking.
In the OP I used what (I am pretty sure) is the court’s own rules for deeming some group to be a suspect class. I think I showed homosexuals clearly fall into a suspect class without even resorting to tortured definitions. Indeed I think they can be argued to be more a suspect class than others already considered suspect.
So, as a matter of law and not wishful thinking, I am asking how the court can rationalize this. Again, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck but it is inconvenient to call it a duck so the courts say it isn’t. :dubious:
And if things need to change there is an amendment process outlined that should be used.
It is terribly dangerous to just assume that a change needs to be made an enshrine it in the Constitution. Today it might be gay marriage. Fair enough.
What is to stop a dictator 100 years from now from twisting the constitution to his whim? This is exactly the reason why the words need to mean what they say, and if there is dispute, we should go to the text of the debates and the intent of the authors. And when a change needs to be made, we should amend the constitution.