The State is not promoting marriage based on attraction. They promote it because nuclear families are good for the community. Gay men and women have been marrying spouses of the opposite sex, having children and constructed solid nuclear families for a very long time. Not all of them are coerced into these relationships. Being pre-disposed to your sexual orientation doesn't mean you aren't predisposed to reproducing and having a family, raising that family in a way that gives their children a great chance at having success in society, etc., etc., etc. The idea that the State promoting marriage between a man and a women who are not related, not polygamist or not conforming for the best interest of the State and the community, but for the reason of mere discrimination is simply wrong. There is a State interest to promote traditional nuclear families. There is a process for society to change the law as State interest and community interest change. It's working gays can marry in many states, they can travel and marry if the State they reside in doesn't permit it and they can continue to expand social awareness and move the law in their favor in States where they don't perform same sex marriage. Where the SC should come down is on the side of equal protection. The Federal government should recognize the right of married same sex couples equally, States that don't perform same sex marriage should be required to offer those couples who's marriages were performed out of State the same status of any out of State married couple who sets up residence and the gay community and those who support them should continue to get the laws changed in States that have another view. There is no Constitutional right to a same sex marriage unless you don't believe the States have any reason to promote the nuclear family in which case there should be no legal status other than individual.
Or you can believe that the state should be slightly less strict in what kind of nuclear family is required to be able to produce benefits to the state. If you think that same sex couples are inherently bad for the community, you are a bigot, plain and simple. ETA: and I mean no offense with the bigot comment. I don't mean you are hateful. It could be purely out of ignorance having not had any exposure to real world same sex couples.
By this sentiment, the Supreme Court should also have stayed out of it when interracial marriage was banned. Loving v. VA would never have happened and, Biggs, you and your wife, and your family and friend spouses, would probably not be married. Food for thought...
In the past couple of days I can see the point of the discussion. If we had not written over 1100 laws to take away liberties from Gay people over the past decades, the case would not be in court. Now they struggle with tax laws, estate taxes, spousal rights and a host of other laws that treat Gay people and their children differently than other families in a legal sense. Very interesting discussion of States Rights vs. Federal too. My take is that if you are a citizen, work and pay taxes you should have the laws applied to you the same as everyone else. No state or federal gov't should be able to say to a couple that has drawn up said contract that we cannot enforce it because it "violates public policy". I don't think we should force churches to marry gays. I'm sure they'll form their own churches for that purpose. This is more of an issue of legal rights. For example, being able to put your spouse on your health insurance, your spouse being able to inherit if you die intestate, etc. etc. Lets look at Article I, section 10, clause 1 of the Constitution. The relevant portion (contracts clause) states: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
Completely disagree. Loving was decided on racial discrimination which was what Loving was all about. Racial discrimination is prohibited under the Constitution. We fought a civil war and amended the Constitution to specifically ban "Racial" discrimination. Loving came out of State law that was specifically set up to ban inter-racial marriage.
The 14th Amendment established the Equal Protection Clause: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; 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." This clause is routinely violated to this day although not to the same extent that it was when the Black Codes that it sought to overturn were in place. Driving while Black is a perfect example of violation of the amendment. So is Stop and Frisk when aggressively applied to minorities and not whites. So are Crack sentencing guidelines that provide for much harsher sentences than for equal amounts of powder cocaine. There are literally thousands of other similar violations (federal, state and local) of the Equal Protection Clause that remain on the books or in the practical application of laws that do not otherwise violate the 14th Amendment.
When stop and frisk is thrown out the minority community is going to suffer disproportionately as the body count piles up. Equal protection no longer applies to the dead.
The obvious answer to the dilemma is to routinely stop and frisk *everybody* in areas that have a high murder rate. You cannot impair an individual because of a group's actions unless you equally impair all individuals. Driving while Black is a clearer case.
The stats tell the story on stop and frisk. It's targeting high crime areas and working. The fact that minorities have disproportionally had their life and liberty protected doesn't deny whitey equal protection.
It's still unconstitutional to target a particular group of citizens for over-zealous enforcement even if it seems to get results. How would you like to get your door kicked in twice a year because the police had determined (and could prove) that this essentially caused the drug problem to dwindle to almost nothing? How would you like to have your 18 year old son routinely tailed by unmarked police vehicles because the police had determined (and could prove) that this essentially caused the DUI teenage drinking problem to dwindle substantially? How would you like to have your 20 year old daughter routinely tailed by unmarked police vehicles because the police had determined (and could prove) that this caused distracted driving deaths to decline substantially? The constitution says that you cannot be searched by the authorities without a warrant or probable cause unless you have been caught committing a crime. Stop and Frisk is unconstitutional and unlawful and it has made the enforcement side of our legal system unlawful in nature.
It doesn't say that at all. This is what it says: Is it unreasonable to search a minor who is highly likely to be carrying an illegal weapon in the public square? Very different then breaking into someone's home without a warrant. The term used is both search and seizure. Not search or seizure.
Marriage equality is very much about the principle of democracy: The protection of minorities against the whims of the majority. Only very primitive people have the perverted view that democracy is the "dictatorship of the majority". THAT is what this case at heart is about: The anti-gay fascists think that gay people are lesser than non-gays (they lie like hell about that one, though, most anti-gay fascist are now crying when they pretend to love gay people "so much!") and they want to deny to them every right possible, they wander render gay people second class citizens, and preferably not citizens at all. The other side think that gays are normal people and should have equal rights so, the usual sickening ploys and lies have arisen, such as: Denying that there is such a thing as gay people. Biggs did that right here on this thread, by saying that this is not a civil rights issue. When they do acknowledge the existence of gay people, they imply that it's something optional, like wearing blue jeans or not...
Please let me know where I said any of that nonesense? Of course it's a civil rights issue. Not all civil rights issues are US Constitutional issues. Gays are excersizing their civil rights and changing the law all over the country. Happy Easter L
Secure in your person against unreasonable searches and seizures unless upon probable cause a warrant is issued supported by oath or affirmation and particularly describing the place, person, things. Sounds like it says that to me. It is not unreasonable if you intend to search all minors in the public square equally. It is unreasonable if you choose to identify a subset of minors to search based on race, religion or other class identification. It's no more lawful for the authorities to target minorities to be searched than it was to deny them access to public facilities.
Isn't that what this is about. Lets see the proof that they were targeted on racial grounds? You can't protect society if all policing resources are allocated equally to no crime, low crime and high crime areas. Don't we want more police resources allocated to stoping crime in areas of high crime? Do you really want to put people who live in high density housing subject to more death and destruction. Isn't that a raced based policy? Allocation based on criminal activity by police isn't racial profiling. Is that what you're really advocating? It seems to me you support killing minorities through allocation. That's about as raced based as it gets.
No, I'm talking about the Constitution. You're talking about whatever gets the job done whether it is legal or not. It really helped cut down on the possibility of Japanese saboteurs and spies when the internment camps were put up in WWII and all Americans of Japanese descent were forced to relocate to them. It certainly would have helped prevent German saboteurs and spies if we had interned all Americans of German descent as well. We chose to target Japanese Americans as a group and let German Americans roam freely. That was an unconstitutional decision made on the basis of race, even if the government of the time would not admit that race was the basis. We either have a Constitution that we honor or we're all living an extraordinary lie. On Stop and Frisk right now we're living the lie.
Again you have chosen to believe stop and frisk is based on race based on your own personal bias without evidence that's the case. Without a sense of security in the public square your rights don't exist.
Are you playing the willful idiot here? Not accusing, just asking, because when a position is patently untenable on the face of it you have to assume a willful bias. And BTW, the stops happen all over the city. They're not restricted to high crime neighborhoods. They are however overwhelmingly done against minority teenagers. http://stopandfrisk.org/stop-and-frisk-map-nyc/ That's a good guide to show you where stops occur. One very constitutional method of getting results to improve public safety would be the DUI checkpoints that local police setup on Friday and Saturday nights. In New London this turns into random stops at the checkpoints with police also watching for drivers who appear to be impaired. I've been pulled over with other people in the car at least once for a friendly conversation. I've driven by little old ladies who were pulled over. I'm sure they watch for signs of impaired driving and pull those people over whenever they see them but they also make a good show of checking people at random and not apparently by profile.
well gonna chime in my stance even though most on here could care less. the "marriage" between 2 males or 2 females, IMO, should be referred to as a "civil union". i do not agree with using the term marriage, gay marriage, marriage to significant other", etc etc. this civil union should carry all the legal, financial, and social rights/wrongs as male-female marriages do.
Unlike you I'm very curious to see what the actual criteria for stop and frisk is, not what you are anyone else says it is. I suspect it will be found unconstitutional if the profiling is merely race based. What is very clear is stop and frisk has worked. The minority community in NYC unlike the minority community in Chicago has seen a steady decline in random gun deaths in the street that has primarily targeted the minority community. Unlike you and other liberals who are shocked and outraged that kids are being patted down, I think the fact that kids aren't bringing their guns into the streat and innocent people, primarily minorities, are no longer being gunned down in the streat is a great thing. Those would be dead or intimidated have civil and human rights that are being violated. We have gotten way off topic here but the reality is this like Gay Marriage isn't a cut and dry. Civil rights are always a two sided coin. The Constitution isn't some straight forward manual it's open to interpretation and has to be balanced in some respects to both the practical and the fact that we do live in a Democratic Republic.
