How Does Supreme Court Justice Scalia Justify Gay Bias?
Antonin Scalia, unfortunately a justice on the United States Supreme Court, really doesn't care that much for individual rights and liberty. In fact, he is one of the reasons why we have a Bill of Rights, to protect us against people like him.
See, on the right wing there are people who like to call themselves, ironically, Constitutionalists. The idea they have is that the Constitution's rights and protections on individual liberty are very, very narrow. As narrow as possible. As narrow as between a neutron and a proton.
According them it might be right for the government to say there is no freedom to read a newspaper, because the Constitution only guarantees explicitly the right to print one under freedom of the press. Maybe I am wrong, but if there is ever a court case on that very issue, I have my doubts that Scalia and others like him (such as fellow rightwing Justice and mute Clarence Thomas) will protect my right to read that newspaper or your right to read my column.
Well, Scalia has stated that gender or sexual orientation are not protected by the Constitution. Antonin Scalia should reread the 14th Amendment. Here is the part that deals with equal protection, "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."
The wording is clear, all citizen are equal under the law. This amendment does not state in the least bit that it only applies to certain categories of equal protection, if that was so, it would say so. If it only wanted to apply to race, it could have easily been written to only apply to race. I urge Scalia to retake first year Constitutional law.
Last, do we really want someone on the court who ignores the clear text of the Constitution because he doesn't really like a group or because gays are disliked by most readers of WND? What if Scalia said that religious groups aren't afforded equal protection? What if all federal legislative protections of religion were struck down, would anyone state the 14th Amendment doesn't give equal protections to religious groups?
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
Sign-Up Now for the Opposing Views Daily Newsletter
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
Scalia is right. Gay people have the same rights as everyone else, but being gay is not protected under the constitution.
Everyone has the right to marry heterosexually.
No one has the right to marry homosexually.
No specific type of people is deprived of rights; everyone has the same rights.No one has the right to marry gayly.
So scalia is right. The constitution does not protect homosexuality. It protects homosexuals' other rights like the right to life liberty etc.
You twisted his words. He never said homosexuals don't have equal rights. He said no one has the right to marry gayly, which is equal for all.
the pursuit of happiness. I see you republicans don't see this as important in the big three rights for Americans.
If a homosexual wants to marry same sex as his or her pursuit of happiness and it hurts no one or no animal, why would the constitution not allow this to be honored?
One would be withholding a groups pursuit of happiness for no reasonable reason.
Is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.
Heterosexuals have the right to marry the person they love.
Homosexuals do not have the right to marry the person they love.
Heterosexuals have the right to have their relationships protected by over one thousand legal and financial protections, including significant income tax savings.
Homosexuals do not have the right to have their relationships protected by over one thousand legal and financial protections, including significant income tax savings.
So the question is, is marriage about love or genitalia? Clearly, in your limited world view, it's all about the genetalia.
Are they being oppressed?
People also don't have many other "rights". As America grows, we will legislate those 'Legal Rights' into the lawbooks and gays will have the freedom to marry or get civil unions.
Before you go off half-cocked about civil unions, remember: love between two people is not diminished due to a lack of a marriage certificate, but a civil union grants those 1000+ legal benefits, tax breaks and freedoms gays deserve as life partners.
Civil Union = All the love + the bennies married folks get.
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
Just popping my head back in to say that civil unions do not offer all of the benefits of heterosexual marriage in many states. I say this because none of the Federal protections cover me and my spouse, and the union isn't recognized in many of the states. We can't even file our taxes jointly, not that we would want to. They gouge you if you don't have children.
I think that if civil unions did grant those things, there wouldn't be as much of an uproar. After all, heterosexuals who have civil unions still call themselves married - it's just a matter of where the ceremony was held and who performed it, really.
Which states have legislated civil union equality and which states have not?
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
States that have civil union equality:
New Jersey (2007); Oregon (2008); Washington (2007). Nevada (2009).
Of the fifty states, only 4 states offer the same state-wide benefits of marriage through civil union.
The states that offer same-sex marriage, which also gives the same statewide benefits of heterosexual marriage are: Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, New Hampshire, Vermont, California and Washington, D.C.
So, that's 7 more states, which drags our total to 11 states. That is 22% of the US.
The other 39 states in the union has not legislated civil union equality.
Not to mention that it only gives state-wide benefits, which, if I recall correctly, ,vary from state to state. It's the federal benefits which translate across the board and are understandably wanted.
Would you say that DOMA prevents homosexual/heterosexual equality in all cases save Federal Employees? I admit that this is mostly rhetorical.
Do you think that the Federal Government would have the authority to impose a law outlawing equality that the first 4 states you list enjoy? What about the 7 states in the second list?
Alternatively, and if you answered yes to those above questions, do you think it would have the authority to mandate each state reorganize their laws to reflect the first 4 states and second 7 states respectively?
Thanks.
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
No. DOMA, as far as I'm aware, only prevents it on a federal employee level. The fact that it's being construed as preventing it everywhere is, I think, wrong.
Please remember that everything below this is merely opinion.
I think that the federal government would have the authority to outlaw or mandate that all states give the same benefits across the board. The basis for that would be that it shouldn't matter what state you go to - you should enjoy or be denied the same rights regardless of where you travel. A federal ruling would make that so. The problem with doing so is Congress and the House. Since all federal law has to go through them, there is no way that either option would be passed.
Senators that aren't for same-sex marriage wouldn't necessarily be for taking away a state's right to decide. Same goes for the opposition.
This would ensure a stalemate.
That being said, I don't think government of any kind should be allowed to make provisions for who can and cannot be married. That, I believe, is a personal choice, so long as the people involved are of age and consent.
I personally find bigamy to be appalling and cannot see how anyone would agree to such an arrangement. But, how people live their lives, so long as they're not hurting others, has no bearing on my life.
What makes this an issue is the benefits. Many people don't want to pay for something that they don't believe in. I understand this. But then you have people who are forced to pay for what they feel is discrimination.
I think I've said this before, but I think that all of the privileges that married couples are afforded should be revoked unless they have children - biological or not. It was argued, I believe by Gregory but I could be mistaken, that those rights existed to protect children. With so many couples opting not to have children, why should they be afforded those rights?
Similarly, I think that all couples - regardless of whether or not they are married, but are in a long-term relationship - should have medical power of attorney. I find it silly that two people - regardless of gender - who have lived together for years but don't have the proper documentation cannot make decisions for their partner.
Of course, I understand that long-term varies from person to person, and that there are laws in many countries regarding cohabitation for x number of years ends up equaling a common law marriage. But then, it only works for those of opposite sex.
I'll admit that, despite being married in the eleven states that recognize my union, I'm a bit fuzzy on many of the federal and state benefits, considering the state I reside in doesn't acknowledge my relationship.