How are you factoring individual intolerance into what I presented? This is a discussion on Social Tolerance and discriminatory legislation against a part of society, and their individual liberties.

Defense Of Marriage Act is 'Actual' legislation.

"No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship"

This act only applies to same sex, hench it's discriminatory. It violates the Equal Protect Clause, written in the Fourteenth Amendment. Which is suppose to protect against discriminatory laws.

This act was introduced to usurp the 'Full Faith and Credit Clause' of the United States Constitution. Which states,

"Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof"

Congress, "having the right to prescribe the manner in which acts and the effect thereof" is moot, not only because the General Law violates the Equal Protection Clause, but also because the act itself gives states the right to 'prescribe acts, records, proceedings, and the effect thereof' which violates the Full Faith and Credit Clause itself!

Furthermore, The Supreme Court has scuttled the case for years.

I did not see that information in the post you provided previously. It seemed to be about personal intolerance of certain groups not of the law. I am no constitution major, so I cant really address the argument from that perspective. the flaw I do see is that laws, by nature, are discriminatory. When you take away or punish certain people for choices,,it could be argued, you are discriminating against that group.

However, as to the fourteenth amendment, of which I understand a little more being raised by folks who were active in civil rights ,,,the equal protection clause implies equal protection of all citizens but it does not list specific 'groups' to be protected. The argument then becomes,, do we define people by their gender or by their sexual preference? If we define by gender(as has traditionally been the case) we do not have discriminatory legislation because the law applies EQUALLy to males and females. If we define by sexual preference,,,there is a case for discrimination because marital guidelines obviously discriminate against those who would prefer the same sex, or those who prefer their siblings, or those who prefer partners under the age of 16.

I am sure it will be an endless debate but I would submit it lies in the disagreement in public opinion of whether identity lies in sexual preference or not. I think in general, laws were built around the basic understanding of people as male or female and the basic premise of the MALE FEMALE relationship being the foundation from which we all come.

Try finding Christian love,,lol


Finding a guy who can take the lead but still cherish is not so easy for a man or a woman to do,,,,


Most who lead want to bully, and most who cherish (excuse my french) have no balls.

No, laws are not by nature discriminatory. They certainly affect, or remove liberties. It's when you apply a law against a specific group that is become discriminatory. In fact, if you removed the same sex reference from the Defense of Marriage Act, it wouldn't be discriminatory. At that point, everyone, heterosexual or not, would be subject to state's laws on the matter... which is still in violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause.. However, it wouldn't be discriminatory legislation.

arguable? That IS the very premise of discrimination.

I recognize this as a form of empowerment, but there is no inherent creditability on the matter of perception, especially when you offer other people's perceptions and experiences. Also, who are you comparing yourself to when you say you 'understand a little more', in respect to the fourteenth amendment?

specify groups would defeat the purpose of the amended equal protection clause, yes.

Not sexual preference, sexual orientation. Preferring brunettes over blondes doesn't classify a person as homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual. Nor does preferring your relatives or children (consenting or not).

sexual orientation has already be included the decisive factor in a supreme court ruling, in regards to the Equal Protection Clause. So the interpretation is lawful, and not open to public opinion.

"In Lawrence v. Texas (2003), the Court struck down a Texas statute prohibiting homosexual sodomy on substantive due process grounds. In Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's opinion concurring in the judgment, however, she argued that by prohibiting only homosexual sodomy, and not heterosexual sodomy as well, Texas's statute did not meet rational-basis review under the Equal Protection Clause; her opinion prominently cited City of Cleburne"

you imply as though homosexuality is some sort of new trend. In fact, homosexuality has existed and was acknowledge before our country was even declared, since at least greek-roman times. Why would you presume that laws didn't account for homosexual relationships?

On another note, as interesting as discussion has become, we should probably continue it in another thread. If you're to respond to this post, please start a new topic post, and post the link to that thread here, I suppose.

How right you are,,,,

this isnt the right place,,,,,I hate when people hijack threads of one topic and change them to something else altogether. .I certainly dont want to be one of them,,my apologies...


http://mingle2.com/topic/show/256486

excuse me, that's not entirely true, sexual orientation is not judicially extended to the Equal Protection Clause. The due process grounds in the Equal Protection Clause was the decisive factor. Sexual Orientation was the issue that needed to be factored by the grounds of due process. Which is the prevailing argument against the constitutionality of the Defense Of Marriage Act, so this was the prelude to what the supreme court decision would be on hearing the Defense Of Marriage Act, if they ever hear the case.

Look, the only reason all of this was mentioned, is because someone challenged my point of social injustice against homosexuality through discriminatory legislation.

The constitutionality of the Defense Of Marriage Act was just an example.


I'm incorrect here, it wouldn't be in violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause, because without the discriminatory portion in the legislation, it wouldn't warrant due process. In fact, it would just be reiterating the existing state rights over authorities of civil marriage.

Date your hand bro. Really simplified things for me.

My sister is a lesbian in Montana..she has no shortage of lovers...
I'm a 100& strait woman and loves seems elusive to me. I don't think our sexual preference has anything to do with it.

its not hard to find true loyal love, we just miss it

1: Youth

2: Society

I am with harmony, didn't see any discrimination against gays in those links.


fantasy "LOl maybe wrong sex is a good idea, if i were straight i would have kids and a wife in a heart beat.But...I'm gay.I know at the age of 19 I'm ready to find true love and find the ''one'' if he exists!But thank you everyone for posting! "
RFLMFAO yeah, right, all it takes is being straight and your whole world is wonderful, uh NOT! And 19??????!!!!!! I was married at 18, and a mom and working on my divorce by 19, so on the grounds of age alone, WTF????????
Also wonder why ANYONE feels a NEED to be married any more anyway. The whole thing has just been turned into a farce compared to what it was intended to be. Nothing more than a financial contract, and ANYONE can get the same from a half hour session with an attorney. Maybe the destruction of marriage overall is why I think it incredibly ridiculous that gays play like it has anything to do with anything but money, and don't just admit that they are in it for the financial aspects and to try to be a thorn in the side of Christians (since civil unions and that half hour with an attorney would give them the exact same benefits, without nearly as much expense or hassle).
I am quite straight LOL and even if I found "the one", wouldn't be rushing for any marriage license. More like a civil contract to protect me from common law marriage statutes that would TRAP me legally.

brett, "How are you factoring individual intolerance into what I presented? This is a discussion on Social Tolerance and discriminatory legislation against a part of society, and their individual liberties. "
Then you are WWWAAAAAAAYYYYYYYY off base. The intolerance is BY the gays and against the majority and long held traditions, standards, rules, customs, cultural norms...The hate crime legislation is discrimination against straight people, and doesn't give gays anything they didn't have except legal backing to VICTIMIZE OTHERS. If you don't even see that, or understand it, then sure not going to bother with the rest of your post. You just seem too confused on this subject to discuss it.
In a following one you wrote
"It's when you apply a law against a specific group that is become discriminatory."
The gays want to make laws against everyone who does not agree with them, right up to refusing the right of free speech. That makes the laws discriminatory against anyone that challenges or simply disagrees with them. Saw an article where some gay woman was going on and on about her recent gay marriage AT WORK. After listening to it until he was fed up, the guy, in an apologetic tone, said that he thought it was wrong. Nothing more, nothing nearly as overt as what the gay woman had been doing. HE GOT FIRED FOR JUST THAT. And that is a perfect example of how this legislation would work, point blank harassment, bullying, discrimination, and free reign to victimize anyone else, with a simple say so that they didn't like what the other person said.
"specify groups would defeat the purpose of the amended equal protection clause, yes."
Then why do you think this new gay legislation is ok? It is exactly what you just said would defeat the purpose.
" Not sexual preference, sexual orientation."
Now you are going to try to use samantics? Don't you see how you are shooting yourself in the foot with stuff like this? Care to try to explain the difference between orientation and preference, or how you apply either term in your line of "thinking"?
"sexual orientation has already be included the decisive factor in a supreme court ruling, in regards to the Equal Protection Clause. So the interpretation is lawful, and not open to public opinion."
Please rephrase. Didn't understand what that was supposed to be saying. As far as that Texas sodomy suit LOL Guess they should have just left out the word "homosexual", then they could have found the person guilty.
"QUOTE:

I think in general, laws were built around the basic understanding of people as male or female and the basic premise of the MALE FEMALE relationship being the foundation from which we all come.


you imply as though homosexuality is some sort of new trend. In fact, homosexuality has existed and was acknowledge before our country was even declared, since at least greek-roman times. Why would you presume that laws didn't account for homosexual relationships? "

Just because something is a "trend" it does not make it acceptable, unless you think the rising stats on arson make burning down a house acceptable. Crime has existed since the beginning of time, and has never been acceptable either. That is why we have laws that say NO. Using your own words, you have just given reasons why the laws against gays SHOULD be upheld, which I believe is contrary to your agenda. There is no way you can dispute the real truth of "laws were built around the basic understanding of people as male or female and the basic premise of the MALE FEMALE relationship being the foundation from which we all come."
Simple biology being what it is, makes being gay abnormal.

Your hypocrisy in posting further in this thread, while trying to tell other people to start a new one, IS a VERY GOOD example of the mindset of the bullying gays. Making rules for everyone else, out of nothing but revenge of some kind, with nothing more than lies, hypocrisy, double standards.... I suppose when they stop doing that, and making themselves less respect worthy (same goes for their opinions etc), and just start acting like rational, fair adults, they might get more people to listen. Flipping out like drama queens, threatening anyone who doesn't bow down, and trying to bully an entire country is only going to have the natural consequences of the majority lashing BACK. Best get your head around the reality of what is offensive and what is defensive, or there will be a LOT of them being prosecuted. Arrogance and ignorance are a very dangerous combination.

No need for the aggressive tone really, I happened to have not felt bullied at all in this discussion and we did continue it in another, civil , thread. Whatever our opinions,, it makes a stronger point when we can put forth our case with a civil tone.