The Real Gay Issue in '08: Freedom, not Marriage

[khushibagh]

Re: The Real Gay Issue in '08: Freedom, not Marria

I agree. I think the OP is simply being alarmist. I think gays are better served with strict constitutional judges because gay rights will be protected on merit instead of on emotional grounds. Roe v. Wade, for instance, is bad law on it's merits but the emotional vacuum in which it was enacted made it almost demanded by the public. But law professors shudder at the means by which it became law. We really don't want to go down that road because someday someone may find the methodology of such "law" contrary and the arguments will move back into the Congress. You want the inherent rights we have to be protected. Gay don't need any additional rights they need their rights protected. The rights are there they are simply being subjugated.

And what existing inherent rights of relevance to gay people are being subjugated? Did Lawrence create a new right to consensual sodomy or protect an existing inherent right to privacy?

 

[TX-Beau]

Re: The Real Gay Issue in '08: Freedom, not Marria

Is that like interpretive dance?

 

[TX-Beau]

Re: The Real Gay Issue in '08: Freedom, not Marria

LOL, OK I'll stop picking on you.

 

[construct]

Re: The Real Gay Issue in '08: Freedom, not Marria

In the case of sodomy you're talking about an activity. I'm talking about inherent rights of a people that, through biology, genetics, what have you should not be discriminated against based on those physical characteristics. Granted, sodomy is perhaps a basic part of homosexuality in practice but sodomy laws, to a great extent, are being phased out at the local/state level and those reversals are being upheld. I'm confident that even this court would follow suit on that. More importantly, though, I'm convince (obviously people can disagree) that ultimately you want a conservative (strict interpretation) judgeship because once it's established that homosexuality is not a choice the need for protection of homosexuals would become axiomatic.

The issue is not choice. Lots of choices are protected under the due process clauses. Marriage and the selection of a mate is a fundamental liberty protected by due process, and it is a choice. What languages you teach your children is a choice protected by due process. Discipline of children is a choice protected by due process. These are just examples that come immediately to mind.

As for states phasing out sodomy laws--we tried twice to get this one abolished judicially in Texas (at both the Court of Criminal Appeals and the Texas Supreme Court). Neither would do it. The legislature hasn't repealed it either, and I see no likelihood of its being repealed this session.

The present Court would not overturn Lawrence, but you are one vote shy of getting your wish.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: The Real Gay Issue in '08: Freedom, not Marria

And what existing inherent rights of relevance to gay people are being subjugated? Did Lawrence create a new right to consensual sodomy or protect an existing inherent right to privacy?

Barring gays from enjoyment of the benefits and privileges conferred by the current (religious) definition of marriage in the law is a violation of the freedom of association and equal protection before the law.
Court rulings can't create rights; rights are inherent. The right behind Lawrence isn't a right to sodomy, but the right to activity between consenting adults, whether that's wrestling, playing horseshoes, cooking a meal, or sex. It's a right very closely related to the basic principle of human existence: you own yourself. That self-ownership is yours to exercise in whatever way you wish so long as you don't harm anyone else, and when exercised jointly, with someone else, even loses that provision (with consent).
And in some places gays still don't enjoy their rights to equal employment opportunity, housing, etc. -- including being barred from membership in many fraternities in college.

 

[construct]

Re: The Real Gay Issue in '08: Freedom, not Marria

Agreed (re:choice), I was just clarifying my point which really wasn't as encompassing. You're points are well taken.

Well, Lawrence was not an equal protection case. The Court did not reach that argument. So the argument that homosexuality is an immutable characteristic is not particularly relevant. Sexual orientation is not a suspect classification under current equal protection jurisprudence anyway.

 

[Spensed]

Re: The Real Gay Issue in '08: Freedom, not Marria

Yes I get that you're easily moved by what Obama says rather than taking stock of what he does and the process by which he gets there.

Obama voted against Roberts and explained why he did so.

Take stock of that.

 

[khushibagh]

Re: The Real Gay Issue in '08: Freedom, not Marria

Barring gays from enjoyment of the benefits and privileges conferred by the current (religious) definition of marriage in the law is a violation of the freedom of association and equal protection before the law.
Court rulings can't create rights; rights are inherent. The right behind Lawrence isn't a right to sodomy, but the right to activity between consenting adults, whether that's wrestling, playing horseshoes, cooking a meal, or sex. It's a right very closely related to the basic principle of human existence: you own yourself. That self-ownership is yours to exercise in whatever way you wish so long as you don't harm anyone else, and when exercised jointly, with someone else, even loses that provision (with consent).
And in some places gays still don't enjoy their rights to equal employment opportunity, housing, etc. -- including being barred from membership in many fraternities in college.

How odd that you should talk about freedom of association and then complain about employment and housing discrimination. Surely fraternities, as private voluntary associations, should have the right not to associate with people they find obectionable? It is also not very libertarian (I thought you consider yourself a libertarian?) to have the big bad government telling private employers whom they should hire and what criteria they should use.

In the case of sodomy you're talking about an activity. I'm talking about inherent rights of a people that, through biology, genetics, what have you should not be discriminated against based on those physical characteristics. Granted, sodomy is perhaps a basic part of homosexuality in practice but sodomy laws, to a great extent, are being phased out at the local/state level and those reversals are being upheld. I'm confident that even this court would follow suit on that. More importantly, though, I'm convince (obviously people can disagree) that ultimately you want a conservative (strict interpretation) judgeship because once it's established that homosexuality is not a choice the need for protection of homosexuals would become axiomatic.

Orientation may not be a choice but choosing to engage in sexual activity is a choice. The Catholic Church has said that homosexuals should choose to be celibate. There is no strict interpretation of the Constitution that says that homosexuals have a right to self actualization.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: The Real Gay Issue in '08: Freedom, not Marria

How odd that you should talk about freedom of association and then complain about employment and housing discrimination. Surely fraternities, as private voluntary associations, should have the right not to associate with people they find obectionable? It is also not very libertarian (I thought you consider yourself a libertarian?) to have the big bad government telling private employers whom they should hire and what criteria they should use.

Heh -- got me there. I was just brainstorming all the topics usually brought up. But I had in mind campus housing which is effectively government -- and the government, unlike private entities, isn't supposed to discriminate.

Orientation may not be a choice but choosing to engage in sexual activity is a choice. The Catholic Church has said that homosexuals should choose to be celibate. There is no strict interpretation of the Constitution that says that homosexuals have a right to self actualization.

If homosexuals have none, then heterosexuals have none -- it's "all men are created equal", not "all men who agree with a certain moral viewpoint". Biden was right in that: equal rights are guaranteed to all, not just to a special class.