Stage set for possible showdown on gay marriage

[Kevin]

I could use the same line in the Declaration to justify the legalization of crack cocaine, or pretty much anything that might make someone happy. The fact is that the Declaration carries with it ZERO legal authority. Find a quote in the Federalist Papers or something like that if you want to impress someone.

[Rudey]

I always wondered what would happen once they found the gay "gene."

Then what?

Should it be "fixed?" I know a lot of people on Ricky Lake (yeah that's right, you read it right) would use the phrase nobody would choose to be born this way or to become gay and that you're born with it.

When I took Sign Language, the deaf community was adamant about them not being handicapped and being very much against surgery and implants to "fix" anything.

Just a general question.

-Rudey

[DeltAlum]

Originally Posted by Rudey

I always wondered what would happen once they found the gay "gene."

Just a general question.

And a damned good one.

Love and marriage aren't ALL about sex, although it clearly is a large part of a relationship.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Rudey

I always wondered what would happen once they found the gay "gene."

Then what?

Should it be "fixed?" I know a lot of people on Ricky Lake (yeah that's right, you read it right) would use the phrase nobody would choose to be born this way or to become gay and that you're born with it.

When I took Sign Language, the deaf community was adamant about them not being handicapped and being very much against surgery and implants to "fix" anything.

Just a general question.

-Rudey

I think that such a finding would probably go a long way towards classifying homosexuals as a protected minority group for the purposes of illegal discrimination.

Otherwise, maybe Pfizer could develop a genetic therapy to fix it.

They could call it "gayaway."

[AlphaFrog]

Originally Posted by ktsnake

I think that such a finding would probably go a long way towards classifying homosexuals as a protected minority group for the purposes of illegal discrimination.

They already are a protected minority group for discrimination.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

They already are a protected minority group for discrimination.

Not necessarily true everywhere - in fact, many states do not include sexual orientation in 'equal rights' definitions and legislation.

[kddani]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Not necessarily true everywhere - in fact, many states do not include sexual orientation in 'equal rights' definitions and legislation.

Yep. Discrimination against homosexuals is not anywhere near the same level as discrimination based on race or gender.

[AlphaFrog]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Not necessarily true everywhere - in fact, many states do not include sexual orientation in 'equal rights' definitions and legislation.

I didn't realize that it wasn't everywhere, but apparently there are 27 states that do have anti-discrimination laws, and 8 that say their current legislature covers it, even though not specifically stated.

[Rudey]

Originally Posted by ktsnake

I think that such a finding would probably go a long way towards classifying homosexuals as a protected minority group for the purposes of illegal discrimination.

Otherwise, maybe Pfizer could develop a genetic therapy to fix it.

They could call it "gayaway."

If given the choice to fix it in their kids, I'm sure many a parent would choose to do so at the first sign of a young boy's desire to play with Barbies. Perhaps it's similar to a benign tumor or being deaf since it doesn't kill you and deaf people do not consider themselves handicapped but just different. Who knows.

-Rudey

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

I didn't realize that it wasn't everywhere, but apparently there are 27 states that do have anti-discrimination laws, and 8 that say their current legislature covers it, even though not specifically stated.

Also, a lot of companies have adopted policies on their own. Oklahoma, for example, and I'm assuming most southern/Bible belt states do not have policies against discrimination based on sexual orientation.

[AlphaFrog]

The other question is whether it would be covered by medical insurance as a "necessary procedure" or if it would be classified as cosmetic/voluntary.

[kstar]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

True, but as there is nothing mentioned in the constitution, nor should there be in my opinion, I think it's acceptable to go to the Declaration. We say these rights are inalienable, although we can take away someone's life and liberty IF they harm other people.

Gay marriage does not harm other people, and if marriage does fall under pursuit of happiness then it should indeed be allowed.

It's not that there is nothing mentioned in the Constitution, it's that the Declaration states it so simply. Yes, it holds no legal basis, but it is a basic tenet of our society.

[Rudey]

Originally Posted by kstar

It's not that there is nothing mentioned in the Constitution, it's that the Declaration states it so simply. Yes, it holds no legal basis, but it is a basic tenet of our society.

The Declaration doesn't mention it. Your intepretation of it does. You should drink some green tea and relax for like 5 minutes there killer.

-Rudey

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by kstar

It's not that there is nothing mentioned in the Constitution, it's that the Declaration states it so simply. Yes, it holds no legal basis, but it is a basic tenet of our society.

You can expand that phrase to mean just about anything you want it to say.

Legalization of drugs? -- pursuit of happiness/liberty

Want to bang a child prostitute? -- pursuit of happiness/liberty

I could go on, but you get the idea. As Rudey said, it's your interpretation, and since your interpretation has not been found to have any legal import whatsoever by anyone who makes those sort of decisions, I'm not sure where you're coming from except to tell us what your opinion is.

So, thanks for your opinion. If you have anything that is actually relevant to share though, please feel free.

[kstar]

Originally Posted by ktsnake

You can expand that phrase to mean just about anything you want it to say.

Legalization of drugs? -- pursuit of happiness/liberty

Want to bang a child prostitute? -- pursuit of happiness/liberty

I could go on, but you get the idea. As Rudey said, it's your interpretation, and since your interpretation has not been found to have any legal import whatsoever by anyone who makes those sort of decisions, I'm not sure where you're coming from except to tell us what your opinion is.

So, thanks for your opinion. If you have anything that is actually relevant to share though, please feel free.

Just because I didn't feel like enumerating every single thing in the Constitution and court decision that supports me and instead choosing a concise quote, doesn't mean that I am wrong. If in court decisions they can cite the Declaration as precident, why can't I?