Much Props to Michael Irvin for standing up for marriage equality

[nosqadupper]

Some of you really need to read a book or go to school. A lot of you are throwing out terms that you don't understand.
1. Civil rights are those rights given to all US citizens under the constitution.  Everyone has these rights no matter what your race or sexual orientation is.  Civil rights have nothing to do with black people, with the exception that we were denied certain civil rights.  It is a term that's applicable to any US citizen and black people do not own it like some of you seem to believe.

2. There are 2 distinct components to marriage.  There is the legal aspect and also the religious aspect.  Marriage predates any religion, and it certainly predates your specific religion.  As such, there is a foundation for there to be laws governing marriage.  Since there are laws governing marriage, the legal aspect of marriage is the only one that matters.  The religious aspect is between you and your god.  No one else cares.  However since there are laws governing marriage, they must be applied to everyone within the boundaries of the constitution.

3. There are rights that are not specifically in the constitution but that are still given the same protection.  These are called fundamental rights.  They include things such as the right to privacy and the right to marry.  Everyone has the right to marry.  Since everyone has this right, any restriction on the right is going to be unconstitutional.  If no one were allowed to marry, it would be a restriction of substantive due process.  Instead, only a certain group is not allowed to marry.  This is a violation of the Equal Protection clause.

4. Equal protection questions start with the identification of the class being discriminated against.  Any discrimination based on race or religion is going to be subject to strict scrutiny.  Usually, discrimination based on sexual orientation would be subject to intermediate scrutiny, which is a lower standard.  However, since the right to marry is a fundamental right, it will be subject to strict scrutiny. In order for the ban on gay marriage to stand, the state must have a compelling interest.  Most strict scrutiny laws are struck down as unconstitutional.

5. The issue now is that marriage has traditionally been governed by individual states, which is why some allow it and some don't.  Because of DOMA, the federal government doesn't enforce the full faith and credit clause, which would require all states to recognize the gay marriages performed in other states.  However, as stated in #4, DOMA is unconsitutional.  Obama's administration has recently said that it will no longer defend this act in courts, and I think recently they started actions to have it declared unconstitutional.  This is an inevitability.  DOMA will be gone, along with it's definition of a marriage as being between a man and a woman, and states will have to recognize those marriages performed in other states and eventually will be forced to allow it themselves, because any law against it will be similarly unconstitutional.  Any argument against this is not based in fact or reality.

A couple more points, freedom of religion will not be impacted by this, because this only affects legal marriages.  No one is forcing religions to perform marriages that they are against.  Only states will be.  Second, the argument that any gay person is currently able to get married to someone of the opposite sex is irrational.  The right is the right to marry the person of your choosing.  Currently only gay people are denied this.  Now usually comes the slippery slope fallacy.  What about incest? What about polygamy? Where those arguments fail is that being gay is who you are.  Incest and polygamy are choices.  Gay marriage is not about legislating moral behavior.  It is giving a class of people equal rights.  A ban on gay marriage is a denial of rights based not on who someone loves, but who they are as a person.  It is saying that who homosexuals are as people is wrong and that they are incapable of having traditional sexual values (like someone who practices incest or polygamy).  This is wrong and the reason why black people like myself draw the comparison to our own struggle is because a ban on same sex marriage, and the comparisons to sexually deviant behavior, are very similar to calling someone less than a person.  Just not in so many words.  A gay couple is not different than a straight couple, yet by saying that they can't possibly have the same values as you do because they are gay, you are saying that they are less than you.  Maybe 3/5ths of you?...

 

[jimmybeanz]

Originally Posted by kiendienn

Originally Posted by jimmybeanz

Originally Posted by Deuce King

 

With that being said I can see why your a FORMER history teacher.  You might want to brush up on your history a little bit more champ if you believe the two even come close to being the same.

so tired of gays trying to equate their struggle to blacks. there's NO comparison. have gays been kidnapped and enslaved because of their sexuality? told they couldn't vote/get an education/travel/use a restroom etc. because they are gay? stop the madness already.  

why won't blacks stop bickering about whose struggle was worst and actually be productive by helping out their fellow man/woman that's going through similar struggles (regardless of whose was x times worst)

and the comparison is flawed due to the huge gap between the 2 time periods.  if homosexuality was as prominent and public during the same time period of discrimination for blacks, then both parties would be in the same boat, in the same restrooms, using the same water fountains.  bigotry and ignorance is blind.  it's not going to favor homosexuality over skin color, and if you're black and homosexual, it won't make you twice as bad.

it's not bragging rights about who had it worst, it's the bragging rights to be able to say, "we worked together, and we were able to overcome ignorance and close-mindedness"

l m a o at you not knowing what you're talking about.  you think gayness has only been "prominent" over the last 30 years???!!! really?!?

 

[jimmybeanz]

Originally Posted by kiendienn

Originally Posted by jimmybeanz

Originally Posted by Deuce King

 

With that being said I can see why your a FORMER history teacher.  You might want to brush up on your history a little bit more champ if you believe the two even come close to being the same.

so tired of gays trying to equate their struggle to blacks. there's NO comparison. have gays been kidnapped and enslaved because of their sexuality? told they couldn't vote/get an education/travel/use a restroom etc. because they are gay? stop the madness already.  

why won't blacks stop bickering about whose struggle was worst and actually be productive by helping out their fellow man/woman that's going through similar struggles (regardless of whose was x times worst)

and the comparison is flawed due to the huge gap between the 2 time periods.  if homosexuality was as prominent and public during the same time period of discrimination for blacks, then both parties would be in the same boat, in the same restrooms, using the same water fountains.  bigotry and ignorance is blind.  it's not going to favor homosexuality over skin color, and if you're black and homosexual, it won't make you twice as bad.

it's not bragging rights about who had it worst, it's the bragging rights to be able to say, "we worked together, and we were able to overcome ignorance and close-mindedness"

l m a o at you not knowing what you're talking about.  you think gayness has only been "prominent" over the last 30 years???!!! really?!?

 

[Betonblck]

Originally Posted by nosqadupper



A couple more points, freedom of religion will not be impacted by this, because this only affects legal marriages.  No one is forcing religions to perform marriages that they are against.  Only states will be.  Second, the argument that any gay person is currently able to get married to someone of the opposite sex is irrational.  The right is the right to marry the person of your choosing.  Currently only gay people are denied this.  Now usually comes the slippery slope fallacy.  What about incest? What about polygamy? Where those arguments fail is that being gay is who you are.  Incest and polygamy are choices.  Gay marriage is not about legislating moral behavior.  It is giving a class of people equal rights.  A ban on gay marriage is a denial of rights based not on who someone loves, but who they are as a person.  It is saying that who homosexuals are as people is wrong and that they are incapable of having traditional sexual values (like someone who practices incest or polygamy).  This is wrong and the reason why black people like myself draw the comparison to our own struggle is because a ban on same sex marriage, and the comparisons to sexually deviant behavior, are very similar to calling someone less than a person.  Just not in so many words.  A gay couple is not different than a straight couple, yet by saying that they can't possibly have the same values as you do because they are gay, you are saying that they are less than you.  Maybe 3/5ths of you?...

Good post.  I disagree with this last paragraph though.  I think you contradict yourself.  Is it a "civil right" to be able to marry the person of the choosing?  (that would include incest if it is among 2 consenting adults)  If it is a civil right to be able to marry the person of your choosing, why is government still setting the rules of marriage among consenting adults?

I think the whole controversy about gay marriage revolves around legislating moral behavior. 

 

[Betonblck]

Originally Posted by nosqadupper



A couple more points, freedom of religion will not be impacted by this, because this only affects legal marriages.  No one is forcing religions to perform marriages that they are against.  Only states will be.  Second, the argument that any gay person is currently able to get married to someone of the opposite sex is irrational.  The right is the right to marry the person of your choosing.  Currently only gay people are denied this.  Now usually comes the slippery slope fallacy.  What about incest? What about polygamy? Where those arguments fail is that being gay is who you are.  Incest and polygamy are choices.  Gay marriage is not about legislating moral behavior.  It is giving a class of people equal rights.  A ban on gay marriage is a denial of rights based not on who someone loves, but who they are as a person.  It is saying that who homosexuals are as people is wrong and that they are incapable of having traditional sexual values (like someone who practices incest or polygamy).  This is wrong and the reason why black people like myself draw the comparison to our own struggle is because a ban on same sex marriage, and the comparisons to sexually deviant behavior, are very similar to calling someone less than a person.  Just not in so many words.  A gay couple is not different than a straight couple, yet by saying that they can't possibly have the same values as you do because they are gay, you are saying that they are less than you.  Maybe 3/5ths of you?...

Good post.  I disagree with this last paragraph though.  I think you contradict yourself.  Is it a "civil right" to be able to marry the person of the choosing?  (that would include incest if it is among 2 consenting adults)  If it is a civil right to be able to marry the person of your choosing, why is government still setting the rules of marriage among consenting adults?

I think the whole controversy about gay marriage revolves around legislating moral behavior. 

 

[Peep Game]

Originally Posted by jimmybeanz

Originally Posted by kiendienn

Originally Posted by jimmybeanz

so tired of gays trying to equate their struggle to blacks. there's NO comparison. have gays been kidnapped and enslaved because of their sexuality? told they couldn't vote/get an education/travel/use a restroom etc. because they are gay? stop the madness already.  

why won't blacks stop bickering about whose struggle was worst and actually be productive by helping out their fellow man/woman that's going through similar struggles (regardless of whose was x times worst)

and the comparison is flawed due to the huge gap between the 2 time periods.  if homosexuality was as prominent and public during the same time period of discrimination for blacks, then both parties would be in the same boat, in the same restrooms, using the same water fountains.  bigotry and ignorance is blind.  it's not going to favor homosexuality over skin color, and if you're black and homosexual, it won't make you twice as bad.

it's not bragging rights about who had it worst, it's the bragging rights to be able to say, "we worked together, and we were able to overcome ignorance and close-mindedness"

l m a o at you not knowing what you're talking about.  you think gayness has only been "prominent" over the last 30 years???!!! really?!?

I think what he meant by "prominent" is that homosexuality has been much more public/out in the open in the last 30 years compared to times before that. People
were much more inclined to hide it and be embarrassed or whatever back then compared to times since then, even though it still happens today.

"why won't blacks stop bickering about whose struggle was worst and actually be productive by helping out their fellow man/woman that's going through similar struggles"

^^^That wouldn't have to happen if most non-blacks (or actually just white people) would stop acting like slavery/discrimination never happened, as in the "what are you talking
about, Obama is president" time stuff. You have people trying to hide and bury discrimination underground and erase it. You can't do that when this contry's foundation is based
on racism and discrimination. Sure, blacks should stop bickering and try to build on themselves, but whites should try to stop covering their eyes and ears at the same time when
things are obvious. 



  

 

[Peep Game]

Originally Posted by jimmybeanz

Originally Posted by kiendienn

Originally Posted by jimmybeanz

so tired of gays trying to equate their struggle to blacks. there's NO comparison. have gays been kidnapped and enslaved because of their sexuality? told they couldn't vote/get an education/travel/use a restroom etc. because they are gay? stop the madness already.  

why won't blacks stop bickering about whose struggle was worst and actually be productive by helping out their fellow man/woman that's going through similar struggles (regardless of whose was x times worst)

and the comparison is flawed due to the huge gap between the 2 time periods.  if homosexuality was as prominent and public during the same time period of discrimination for blacks, then both parties would be in the same boat, in the same restrooms, using the same water fountains.  bigotry and ignorance is blind.  it's not going to favor homosexuality over skin color, and if you're black and homosexual, it won't make you twice as bad.

it's not bragging rights about who had it worst, it's the bragging rights to be able to say, "we worked together, and we were able to overcome ignorance and close-mindedness"

l m a o at you not knowing what you're talking about.  you think gayness has only been "prominent" over the last 30 years???!!! really?!?

I think what he meant by "prominent" is that homosexuality has been much more public/out in the open in the last 30 years compared to times before that. People
were much more inclined to hide it and be embarrassed or whatever back then compared to times since then, even though it still happens today.

"why won't blacks stop bickering about whose struggle was worst and actually be productive by helping out their fellow man/woman that's going through similar struggles"

^^^That wouldn't have to happen if most non-blacks (or actually just white people) would stop acting like slavery/discrimination never happened, as in the "what are you talking
about, Obama is president" time stuff. You have people trying to hide and bury discrimination underground and erase it. You can't do that when this contry's foundation is based
on racism and discrimination. Sure, blacks should stop bickering and try to build on themselves, but whites should try to stop covering their eyes and ears at the same time when
things are obvious. 



  

 

[nosqadupper]

Originally Posted by cguy610

Originally Posted by nosqadupper



A couple more points, freedom of religion will not be impacted by this, because this only affects legal marriages.  No one is forcing religions to perform marriages that they are against.  Only states will be.  Second, the argument that any gay person is currently able to get married to someone of the opposite sex is irrational.  The right is the right to marry the person of your choosing.  Currently only gay people are denied this.  Now usually comes the slippery slope fallacy.  What about incest? What about polygamy? Where those arguments fail is that being gay is who you are.  Incest and polygamy are choices.  Gay marriage is not about legislating moral behavior.  It is giving a class of people equal rights.  A ban on gay marriage is a denial of rights based not on who someone loves, but who they are as a person.  It is saying that who homosexuals are as people is wrong and that they are incapable of having traditional sexual values (like someone who practices incest or polygamy).  This is wrong and the reason why black people like myself draw the comparison to our own struggle is because a ban on same sex marriage, and the comparisons to sexually deviant behavior, are very similar to calling someone less than a person.  Just not in so many words.  A gay couple is not different than a straight couple, yet by saying that they can't possibly have the same values as you do because they are gay, you are saying that they are less than you.  Maybe 3/5ths of you?...

Good post.  I disagree with this last paragraph though.  I think you contradict yourself.  Is it a "civil right" to be able to marry the person of the choosing?  (that would include incest if it is among 2 consenting adults)  If it is a civil right to be able to marry the person of your choosing, why is government still setting the rules of marriage among consenting adults?

I think the whole controversy about gay marriage revolves around legislating moral behavior. 

State governments can still set the rules of marriage and can ban certain things as long as there is a compelling interest.  The health issues with incest are obvious, as well as the opportunities for the abuse of power relationships, like an older relative marrying a younger one.  What I meant when I was differentiating gay marriage from polygamous ones is that there is no difference between a gay family unit and a straight one.  You still have two parents, who presumably would have the same sexual and family traditions as a straight couple.  So in a polygamous relationship, you do have consenting adults, you do not have the same traditional family unit.  You have something else which would eventually lead to favored wives and a kind of class system within families.  And what I meant by saying that it wasn't about legislating moral behavior was that if you want to legislate moral behavior, that's fine, as a polygamous relationship would deviate from what a family is.  By behavior I meant actions taken due to choices that were made.  The legislature saying "we won't allow you to do this specific action." I don't see being gay as a behavior.  Legislating against gays would be legislating against who they are as people.  They can't help who they're attracted to, but no one was born wanting to marry 15 people.

 

[nosqadupper]

Originally Posted by cguy610

Originally Posted by nosqadupper



A couple more points, freedom of religion will not be impacted by this, because this only affects legal marriages.  No one is forcing religions to perform marriages that they are against.  Only states will be.  Second, the argument that any gay person is currently able to get married to someone of the opposite sex is irrational.  The right is the right to marry the person of your choosing.  Currently only gay people are denied this.  Now usually comes the slippery slope fallacy.  What about incest? What about polygamy? Where those arguments fail is that being gay is who you are.  Incest and polygamy are choices.  Gay marriage is not about legislating moral behavior.  It is giving a class of people equal rights.  A ban on gay marriage is a denial of rights based not on who someone loves, but who they are as a person.  It is saying that who homosexuals are as people is wrong and that they are incapable of having traditional sexual values (like someone who practices incest or polygamy).  This is wrong and the reason why black people like myself draw the comparison to our own struggle is because a ban on same sex marriage, and the comparisons to sexually deviant behavior, are very similar to calling someone less than a person.  Just not in so many words.  A gay couple is not different than a straight couple, yet by saying that they can't possibly have the same values as you do because they are gay, you are saying that they are less than you.  Maybe 3/5ths of you?...

Good post.  I disagree with this last paragraph though.  I think you contradict yourself.  Is it a "civil right" to be able to marry the person of the choosing?  (that would include incest if it is among 2 consenting adults)  If it is a civil right to be able to marry the person of your choosing, why is government still setting the rules of marriage among consenting adults?

I think the whole controversy about gay marriage revolves around legislating moral behavior. 

State governments can still set the rules of marriage and can ban certain things as long as there is a compelling interest.  The health issues with incest are obvious, as well as the opportunities for the abuse of power relationships, like an older relative marrying a younger one.  What I meant when I was differentiating gay marriage from polygamous ones is that there is no difference between a gay family unit and a straight one.  You still have two parents, who presumably would have the same sexual and family traditions as a straight couple.  So in a polygamous relationship, you do have consenting adults, you do not have the same traditional family unit.  You have something else which would eventually lead to favored wives and a kind of class system within families.  And what I meant by saying that it wasn't about legislating moral behavior was that if you want to legislate moral behavior, that's fine, as a polygamous relationship would deviate from what a family is.  By behavior I meant actions taken due to choices that were made.  The legislature saying "we won't allow you to do this specific action." I don't see being gay as a behavior.  Legislating against gays would be legislating against who they are as people.  They can't help who they're attracted to, but no one was born wanting to marry 15 people.