Gay marriage

[Brother None]

Actually, that is irrelevant Sander. Take into account the 18th (Prohibition begins) and 21st (Prohibition ends). If an anti-gay marriage amendment manages to make it into the Constitution, it cannot be challenged, nor does the 14th contradict it in the eys of the law. Later amendments supersede previous ones.

Wow. Then your system sucks.

Geee, you think?

But not to be too critical, but the Dutch constitution has several contradictions as well. The 1st and the...7th, I think, for instance.

 

[welsh]

Then we get back to the sticky issue of state's rights vs. federal statutes. California passed an amendment to their state constitution defining marriage as "union between one man and one woman" and, by the 10th Amendment, cannot be challenged in a federal court.

Not exactly right. The 10th amendment is one of those real curious aspects of the Constitution that the judges have been struggling with, especially over the past 15 or so years when the issue of states rights came up in Seminole Indians, and other cases.

Technically the state's can give more rights to a person. They cannot deny people rights under the their constitutional law if it conflicts with the rights offered under the federal constitution.

The question here may be one of gay rights as a suspect class that deserves some level of protection under the equal protection clause. But it could also be a matter of gender rights which has already been given that status, even if it lacks the protection of such classes race, natinality.

The issue gets more clouded by Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, which states:

Section 1. 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.

Not the 15th, which explicitly applies to race. The question lies in does marriage have the status of a constitutionally protected privilege or not?

Well, yes. WHile one of the main bodies of law for civil rights litigation is equal protection, perhaps a more important area is substantive due process. Under this doctrine there are certain rights that are deemed to be fundamental- and that includes the right to family. Since marriage is seen as part of that issue of family, arguably their are other constitutional protections at issue.

Part of the problem is that this thing has become more political and legal- and when that happens bad law gets passed.

 

[Sander]

But not to be too critical, but the Dutch constitution has several contradictions as well. The 1st and the...7th, I think, for instance.

Hmm?? UNless you mean:

1st: No discrimination.
7th part 4: The government may control shows that can be accessed by people under 16 to protect decency.

I don't see a contradiction.

 

[Brother None]

1st: No discrimination.
7th part 4: The government may control shows that can be accessed by people under 16 to protect decency.

I don't see a contradiction.

The 9th, maybe, then

there was a debate a while back. One states there may be no discrimination, the other stated political parties may not be prohibited in stating their opinion. so may political parties be racist?

Turned out it's allowed, hence the CD

 

[Sander]

Then you're talking about these:

Art. 7 . - 1. Niemand heeft voorafgaand verlof nodig om door de drukpers gedachten of gevoelens te openbaren, behoudens ieders verantwoordelijkheid volgens de wet.

- 3. Voor het openbaren van gedachten of gevoelens door andere dan in de voorgaande leden genoemde middelen heeft niemand voorafgaand verlof nodig wegens de inhoud daarvan, behoudens ieders verantwoordelijkheid volgens de wet.

Meh, I actually didn't see them as conflicting.
Probably because I understand no discrimination as no acts of discrimination(eg. firing people because of ethnicity.)

Interestingly, the first article of our consitution states that no discrimination on whatever grounds may be made. Ie. companies could theoretically be obliged to hire anyone that wants to be hired...

Hmm....interesting.

 

[Murdoch]

Sort of Sander. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discrimination gives an appropriate definition of discrimination being consideration based on class...rather than merit. So if two people ahve different merit in the hiring practice its not discrimination in the context of race, etc.

Although by the other definitions you're right, but it's understood that discrimination refers to consideration not based solely on merit.

 

[Brother None]

Meh, I actually didn't see them as conflicting.
Probably because I understand no discrimination as no acts of discrimination(eg. firing people because of ethnicity.)

What you see is irrelevant

De 1e kamer has had debates for many years on the subject. "they're not conflicting"...if only it was that easy

Interestingly, the first article of our consitution states that no discrimination on whatever grounds may be made. Ie. companies could theoretically be obliged to hire anyone that wants to be hired...

I don't think you understand what discrimination is

 

[Sander]

What you see is irrelevant

De 1e kamer has had debates for many years on the subject. "they're not conflicting"...if only it was that easy

Yeah, I got that already..

I don't think you understand what discrimination is

I don't think you understand what a joke is.

 

[Ozrat]

I don't think you understand what discrimination is

I don't think you understand what a joke is.

I don't think you understand what "funny" is.

 

[Brother None]

I don't think you understand what "funny" is.

I do think I agree with Ozrat

(and Sander, wtf? Where were you "joking"?)

 

[Sander]

and Sander, wtf? Where were you "joking

As in, I wasn't being serious with thinking that you could force companies to hire you because they'd be discriminating otherwise.

PS: If I don't know what funny is, Monty Python isn't funny...

 

[welsh]

In the effort to ignore real issues, this is starting to come up again.

For a discussion-
http://www.npr.org/display_pages/features/feature_1976649.html

 

[l0s7 4 lyf3]

For me I don't care if you get married to a toothpick or your rubby ducky that you oh so love to have with you in the bathtub as a child. Most marriages in this day and age are filed as legal marriages (aren't they? I don't know any facts, but from my experiences that's the impression i've had). erm, just strayed a bit. But many of the people in the US trying to criminalize gay marriages are fueling their arguements with the "marriage is between a man and a woman" statement. Which gives their arguement a religious background, and the last time i checked don't we have to have church and state seperated? They're bringing religion to the table of politics. Also, by criminalizing they're making their religious ideals into a law in a country where a particular religion cannot be favored by the government. Or else that would make the country a particular religion, when the country was established so it NOT to have a particular religion, but to support all religions.

By denying the rights of married heterosexuals to homosexuals you ARE giving unequal rights to certain citizens, by law ALL citizens have to have equal rights, or else it's deemed unlawful and the denied rights are restored.

In my experiences the vast majority of people get married to people they love, not just to procreate (having "little joey's. This most likely comes from human nature, the desire to spend your time with things you love (ie people, computers, etc.). Though I'm pulling this interpretation out of my ass, isn't denying marriage of homosexuals denying them, in essence, their right to seek happiness? By eliminating one of their possibilities to seek happiness.

 

[welsh]

Looks like the Republicans and George Bush have just lost an opportunity to institutionalize a form of discrimination into the Constitution.

Sucks for them

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/071504Y.shtml

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/071404Y.shtml

Once again Democrats watching for civil liberties. Poor George and the Christian Fundamentalists- I guess they will have to pick on another discrete minority to oppress- or is that Iraq?

Does this really have to be a constitutional issue?

 

[John Uskglass]

Yes. We're one of the few nations in the western world where marrige still means something.

 

[Big T]

Yes. We're one of the few nations in the western world where marrige still means something.

Just out of interest, what is your divorce rate?
Over on this side of the pond it's somewhere approaching 50% (well, that's the figure that's bandied about, how accurate it is I've no idea).

Just ban all marriage, that'll solve the problem.

 

[John Uskglass]

50%, not the issue

 

[Montez]

I think the fact that they want to add a constitutional amendment defining marriage as strictly man/woman shows that they've already lost the battle. They'd only go to such desperate lengths when the outcome is all but inevitable. Marriage really ceased to be anything sacred a long time ago anyway, when there started to be a significant amount of people who had been married 3,4 or more times. Seriously, when an even larger amount of people get married twice, and it has nothing to do with a spouse dying, the thought of marriage as a sacred, life-long union is a joke. I congratulate the people who do make it work and spend their whole lives dedicated to one other person, but their numbers are shrinking every year.

 

[John Uskglass]

True enough. It's sad, but happening.

 

[c0ldst33ltrs4u]

Question: does it REALLY matter if gays can or can not get married, as long as they love each other? If marriage is no longer the sacred life long union that it was once meant to be what is the point of arguing so much about it?
They love each other? Fine by me! They can live together and be more of a couple than people that are actually married are. So why is it so important to get a piece of paper saying that you are married? Living together is more the way to go IMO (at least right now). Besides nowadays marriage is more of a way to rob the spouse of some money/get robbed by the spouse of some money as a result of the divorce. It's just like the divorced Barbie joke.