Comments on: Part 2 of 3: Everybody Panic And Or Celebrate Over Nothing http://www.secularconservative.net/civil-rights/everybody-panic-and-or-celebrate-over-nothing/ Mon, 10 May 2010 01:39:11 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Janus http://www.secularconservative.net/civil-rights/everybody-panic-and-or-celebrate-over-nothing/#comment-137 Janus Fri, 14 Nov 2008 20:42:00 +0000 http://www.secularconservative.net/civil-rights/everybody-panic-and-or-celebrate-over-nothing/#comment-137 Most of the points you have riased in your comment are answered by a follow up to this serries I did the week after about the 14th amendement. It explains why the 14th amendement should but doesn't apply and touches on the seperate but equal doctrine. You can find that piece here: http://www.secularconservative.net/civil-rights/ask-janus-fourteenth-amendment/ This post was largely directed at answering why people were either really, really happy or really, really pissed off about the California Supreme Court decision. Most of the points you have riased in your comment are answered by a follow up to this serries I did the week after about the 14th amendement. It explains why the 14th amendement should but doesn’t apply and touches on the seperate but equal doctrine. You can find that piece here: http://www.secularconservative.net/civil-rights/ask-janus-fourteenth-amendment/

This post was largely directed at answering why people were either really, really happy or really, really pissed off about the California Supreme Court decision.

]]> By: On Being The Change I Wish To See - Sherri http://www.secularconservative.net/civil-rights/everybody-panic-and-or-celebrate-over-nothing/#comment-135 On Being The Change I Wish To See - Sherri Fri, 14 Nov 2008 19:12:40 +0000 http://www.secularconservative.net/civil-rights/everybody-panic-and-or-celebrate-over-nothing/#comment-135 Your argument concerning full faith and credit concerning states' rights is flawed. If states' rights trumped equal protection under the U.S. Constitution, there would still be racial segregation in the south. To guarantee everyone equal rights, the Civil Rights Act had to be written and passed in 1964 because states were not going to do the right thing without it. Several states had sodomy laws until Lawrence v Texas in 2003. The U.S. Supreme Court had to overturn sodomy laws. In 1967, 16 states had laws that prohibited interracial couples from legally marrying. The U.S. Supreme Court had to strike down those laws in Loving v Virginia. Many states have either anti-gay marriage laws or have passed anti-gay marriage amendments to their constitutions. If states grant full faith and credit for other states' marriage licenses to opposite sex couples, they are clearly violating the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equal protection under the law to gay married couples. No state has the right to deny a minority group equal protection. Therefore, either gay civil marriage must become legal in all 50 states, or civil marriage must be denied to everyone. If any couple, gay or straight wishes to marry, they would have to do it in church. The secular institution could be changed so all couples wishing a legal union must get a civil union license. Your argument of "separate but equal" is extremely flawed and that you may actually believe what you wrote is unconscionable. As we in the south learned a long time ago, separate is never equal. That's why there was a Civil Rights Act in 1964. Segregation itself is designed to deny equal rights to anyone segregated from the whole. If an institution is equal, why does it have to be separate? It is separate because it is not equal. If gay marriages were truly equal to hetero marriages, gay and lesbian married couples would have the same rights to all state and federal protections of legal marriage, such as filing joint federal tax returns as one huge example. There are hundreds of other rights enjoyed by straight couples that are denied to gay married couples because there is no federal equal protection of their right to marry. My suggestion is to either guarantee civil marriage to all couples gay or straight, or do away with the institution of civil marriage and replace the institution in the form of civil unions for everyone. Take "civil marriage" out of the secular language and law, and replace it with "civil union". Require all couples with a civil marriage license, straight or gay, to turn in those licenses and get a civil union license to replace it. Then grant all couples with civil union licenses all the rights civilly married couples now enjoy. Sherri Your argument concerning full faith and credit concerning states’ rights is flawed. If states’ rights trumped equal protection under the U.S. Constitution, there would still be racial segregation in the south. To guarantee everyone equal rights, the Civil Rights Act had to be written and passed in 1964 because states were not going to do the right thing without it.

Several states had sodomy laws until Lawrence v Texas in 2003. The U.S. Supreme Court had to overturn sodomy laws. In 1967, 16 states had laws that prohibited interracial couples from legally marrying. The U.S. Supreme Court had to strike down those laws in Loving v Virginia.

Many states have either anti-gay marriage laws or have passed anti-gay marriage amendments to their constitutions. If states grant full faith and credit for other states’ marriage licenses to opposite sex couples, they are clearly violating the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection under the law to gay married couples. No state has the right to deny a minority group equal protection. Therefore, either gay civil marriage must become legal in all 50 states, or civil marriage must be denied to everyone. If any couple, gay or straight wishes to marry, they would have to do it in church. The secular institution could be changed so all couples wishing a legal union must get a civil union license.

Your argument of “separate but equal” is extremely flawed and that you may actually believe what you wrote is unconscionable. As we in the south learned a long time ago, separate is never equal. That’s why there was a Civil Rights Act in 1964. Segregation itself is designed to deny equal rights to anyone segregated from the whole. If an institution is equal, why does it have to be separate? It is separate because it is not equal.

If gay marriages were truly equal to hetero marriages, gay and lesbian married couples would have the same rights to all state and federal protections of legal marriage, such as filing joint federal tax returns as one huge example. There are hundreds of other rights enjoyed by straight couples that are denied to gay married couples because there is no federal equal protection of their right to marry.

My suggestion is to either guarantee civil marriage to all couples gay or straight, or do away with the institution of civil marriage and replace the institution in the form of civil unions for everyone. Take “civil marriage” out of the secular language and law, and replace it with “civil union”. Require all couples with a civil marriage license, straight or gay, to turn in those licenses and get a civil union license to replace it. Then grant all couples with civil union licenses all the rights civilly married couples now enjoy.

Sherri

]]>