The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    PLEASE READ: To register, turn off your VPN (iPhone users- disable iCloud); you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

  • Hi Guest - Did you know?
    Hot Topics is a Safe for Work (SFW) forum.

Gay Marriage Updates By State

Kulindahr said:
It comes down that way, yes, but the point is that whether one is a member of something by choice or not is already irrelevant for rights being protected. Those two sorts of classes are already treated as one.
Click to expand...
Kulindahr, surely you must know about the different levels of scrutiny with regard to the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment? If not I'll be glad to lay it out for you or you can look it up in Wikipedia...

But to summarize, all groups are not equal according to SCOTUS. Gender equality is less protected than racial equality, and as yet sexual orientation isn't even on the (federal) map.
 
SonOfSlobone said:
Kulindahr, surely you must know about the different levels of scrutiny with regard to the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment? If not I'll be glad to lay it out for you or you can look it up in Wikipedia...

But to summarize, all groups are not equal according to SCOTUS. Gender equality is less protected than racial equality, and as yet sexual orientation isn't even on the (federal) map.
Click to expand...

So you think arguing that being gay is a choice is a strong position?
 
RazorzEdge88 said:
Nobody's saying that.

You're being awfully impervious to facts here.

Go study the Perry case a little better and understand the different levels of scrutiny and why immutability and place in society makes a difference.
Click to expand...

I'm not interested in that. I'm only saying that federal law puts them all on the same level in all the anti-discrimination wording. If they're going to put one item in there that's plainly a choice, then something being a choice is not an argument against it being protected. And if someone wants to claim that some tiny percentage of gays have "changed", it can be pointed on that gender isn't unchangeable, either.
 
Iowa House passes constitutional ban on same-sex marriage

"In order to become law, the amendment must now pass in the Democratic-controlled Iowa Senate, where Majority Leader Mike Gronstal, a Council Bluffs Democrat, has vowed to block it. If it succeeds there, it must be passed by both the House and Senate again in 2013 before it can be placed on the ballot."

http://iowaindependent.com/51790/iowa-house-passes-constitutional-ban-on-same-sex-marriage
 
I suggest everyone call Mike Gronstal and thank him for his courage and leadership.
 
Kulindahr said:
So you think arguing that being gay is a choice is a strong position?
Click to expand...
Huh? Where did you get that from what I said? You said, current law treats all groups the same, and I just pointed out that that's very far from being the truth. Don't matter what any of us thinks the law should be.
 
SonOfSlobone said:
Huh? Where did you get that from what I said? You said, current law treats all groups the same, and I just pointed out that that's very far from being the truth. Don't matter what any of us thinks the law should be.
Click to expand...

Right at the moment, I have no idea.

But the law does make a whole string of things equal, including at least one that's a matter of choice. So the argument that it's a choice holds no water.
 
Gays are a federally recognized class though, under the hate crimes laws extended under the Matthew Shepard Act.
 
Hmm, I guess the problem is we're talking about a number of different things at the same time.

My point was that as far as the Supreme Court is concerned, there's never been a general principle that the equal protection clause applies to any group that might be discriminated against. They've gradually added groups, one by one over the years. But even within this principle, different groups are afforded different levels of protection, or scrutiny. And LGBT's at the moment are not protected in any way. State courts and other legislation may use different criteria.

Even Lawrence v. Texas was decided on the basis of the due process clause, not the equal protection clause. And Kennedy specifically said that nothing in the ruling should be interpreted to require the federal government to give legal recognition to gay relationships.
 
A speech given at Iowa House Committee this week:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSQQK2Vuf9Q&feature=player_embedded"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSQQK2Vuf9Q&feature=player_embedded[/ame]

...the effort to allow a public vote on a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage is dead in the Iowa Legislature this session.
Click to expand...
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20110202/NEWS10/102020363/2-Senate-Democrats-say-loyalty-to-Gronstal-trumps-support-for-marriage-amendment?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|Frontpage
 
Zach Wahls has more courage in his entire body than those bigots do between them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top