The Oregon Court of Appeals has formally asked the state’s highest court to decide whether Republican state senators who carried out a record-setting GOP walkout this year can run for
It is not additional rights. Straight people can marry and gay people can marry that’s equal rights. Saying that gay people cannot marry creates unequal rights between the groups.
The fact that marriage traditionally meant X does not change the fact that marriage legally confers a set of rights to the new couple. Denying LGBT+ people access to those rights means that straight people have MORE rights.
The GOP does not support equal rights and that should be a good reason for everyone to oppose them.
It’s not an additional right because before 2015 LGBT+ people were denied rights straight people have.
You will be surprised to learn legally being able to decide who your next of kin is and the ability to have the person you chose male life decisions is an important right that is ONLY gained through marriage.
It isn’t an additional right when a group gets access to rights that another group already has that they were previously denied due to bigotry.
Denying gay people the right to marry means that straight people enjoy legal rights that gay people do not. That’s straight people having extra rights.
Supporting the GOP supports unequal rights for Americans and that’s ignoring the overt issues of supporting fascists.
I feel that individuals fail to understand logic and or reason. Case in point, imagine if the 2nd Amendment only allowed the right to bear arms meant only gay burly men could possess firearms. Why so many straight white men have guns?
At one point, property ownership was defined as a white male possessing something, and voting was defined as something only male citizens could do. Do you also feel neither of those were Equal Rights issues?
Just because something was defined hundreds of years ago doesn’t mean it should stay that way forever, and it shouldn’t
So just because something was “defined” that means it should never change? Voting used to be defined as only white men voting. By your logic, we shouldn’t have changed that. Same for women having their own bank account or credit cards, everyone wearing seatbelts, smoking areas, etc.
But yes, the reason why marriage is unequal with gays is because of the benefits that come with being married. There’s no other way for gay couples to have those benefits unless they’re legally married. You might not be homophobic, but you’re absolutely wrong
This is doublethink. I’ve typed out several replies so far and deleted each one because I don’t think there’s anything that anyone can say to help you realize your logical fallacy. You said yourself that you won’t change your opinion, which means you’ve shut your mind down and are willing to reject any information in order to maintain a position. That’s no way to go through life, but it’s your life to live. Hopefully some day it becomes clear to you.
Was the emancipation proclamation also an addition of rights since black people were up until then, slaves? Do black people have additional rights in your mind by having the same freedom as other races, since they didn’t have equal rights to begin with?
Not sure you get what the emancipation. Proclamation was.
Since it only freed the slaves in the south. It very much was an additional right since the northern slaves were still slaves. The two groups were not equal under the law.
Yikes your thinking is so childish. Group A gets 10$ every week while group B always gets 5$. By your logic, once group B gets 10$ they now have “additional rights” by getting 5 “extra” dollars
This is your response to everything. “Well, they were slaves before but now that they’re free that basically means they now have additional rights”
This is why you’re getting downvoted. People traditionally owned other people, too. “Traditional” is not necessarily “equal”.
Can a man marry me? Can a woman marry me? If the answer to both questions isn’t exactly the same, that is an explicit failure of the 14th Amendment Equal Protections clause. Just like “Can I own a white person? Can I own a black person?” Asymmetric rights are the purest example of unequal treatment. It’s no different than when a Republican president told the world that Freedom of Religion is Freedom of Christian Religions and that Pagan Religions deserve no rights. (I wonder if you know which president did that)
Be honest if you oppose equal protections, but don’t bend yourself into a pretzel to pretend persecuting homosexuals is something other than it is.
I’m not a child, so I don’t care about downvotes. It just shows my viewpoint is accurate.
I get you may live for an upvote but I live in the real world where success isn’t measured by a click by others.
I do not know which president said that and that is wrong as the 1st amendment guarantees religious rights. I’m not religious but I’m not anti-theist.
I don’t oppose equal protections. You’re bending yourself into a pretzel trying to make it fit the scenario. It’s why the 14th amendment is poorly written. It’s the escape clause for when someone can’t figure something out.
I’m not a child, so I don’t care about downvotes. It just shows my viewpoint is accurate.
You say you’re not a child, but then made clear that you enjoy getting downvotes because you think downvotes mean you’re right. Which are you?
I do not know which president said that and that is wrong as the 1st amendment guarantees religious rights. I’m not religious but I’m not anti-theist.
For the record, it was George W Bush. He was pushing, and making noise, that Wiccans should not be allowed access to a Wiccan Minister, and those who died should not be allowed Wiccan symbolism on their graves or Wiccan burial traditions because he felt “Wicca isn’t a real religion”. Same shit as “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”. Same shit as not allowing gay marriage in the first place.
“Traditionally” in the US, Religious Rights were NOT symmetrically guaranteed. You most certainly could be alienated for holding a fringe religion. Just look at the history of Mormonism if you must.
Quite literally, things like gay marriage is the heart and soul of why the Equal Protection Clause was added after the Civil War. That Americans were too regressive to stop gay marriage immediately (or sexism wrt voting, but that’s in the Amendment as the one equal protection not being granted) is a statement against the People, not the Clause.
I don’t oppose equal protections
But you don’t see how gay marriage isn’t about Equal Protection. And you ignored the part of my point where it is categorically similar to women’s suffrage and slavery.
You’re bending yourself into a pretzel trying to make it fit the scenario
You really “no U” doesn’t work here, or anywhere. I’m not bending anything into pretzels. You don’t even have a counter except to reject my points and openly attack the 14th Amendment.
It’s why the 14th amendment is poorly written
This is a hot take, and one you had better substantiate. The text of the 14th Amendment is absolutely clear, and was written by people who made the intentions of the 14th Amendment just as clear. **Any ** failure to understand the 14th Amendment in text or intent by lawmakers or Justices is done in bad faith. Or as an aforementioned famous Republican said of the Constitution “It’s just a piece of paper”.
Non Sequitur. Nothing you say after this claim attempts to impeach me of circular reasoning. Do you know what a circular argument is?
You’re making the erroneous claim that marriage is defined in the constitution
So you agree that the Constitution has nothing in it that says Marriage is between a man and a woman? Because then there is nothing in it to temper Equal Protections from applying to gay marriage. Or do you believe state and federal law should supersede the rights enshrined in the Constitution?
That means it falls to the states.
The Constitution also doesn’t define “Speech” or “Crime” or hell, “State”.
The courts allowing gay marriage is a misstep by the courts which hopefully the current court will correct as they did with roe.
Annnnnd the truth comes out. Welcome to my block list.
No it’s additional rights. Traditionally marriage was a between a man and a woman. That’s how it’s worked for thousands of years.
I’m not opposed to gay marriage but it’s an additional right.
It is not additional rights. Straight people can marry and gay people can marry that’s equal rights. Saying that gay people cannot marry creates unequal rights between the groups.
The fact that marriage traditionally meant X does not change the fact that marriage legally confers a set of rights to the new couple. Denying LGBT+ people access to those rights means that straight people have MORE rights.
The GOP does not support equal rights and that should be a good reason for everyone to oppose them.
Up until recently marriage was defined as a man and woman. As such it’s an additional right.
You’re not going to change my opinion on the topic. While I’m fine with gay marriage. It’s not an equal right issue as it’s an additional right.
Deny gay marriage is not giving straight couples more rights. It’s giving them the right to marriage which was defined as a man and a woman.
It’s not an additional right because before 2015 LGBT+ people were denied rights straight people have.
You will be surprised to learn legally being able to decide who your next of kin is and the ability to have the person you chose male life decisions is an important right that is ONLY gained through marriage.
It isn’t an additional right when a group gets access to rights that another group already has that they were previously denied due to bigotry.
Denying gay people the right to marry means that straight people enjoy legal rights that gay people do not. That’s straight people having extra rights.
Supporting the GOP supports unequal rights for Americans and that’s ignoring the overt issues of supporting fascists.
I feel that individuals fail to understand logic and or reason. Case in point, imagine if the 2nd Amendment only allowed the right to bear arms meant only gay burly men could possess firearms. Why so many straight white men have guns?
At one point, property ownership was defined as a white male possessing something, and voting was defined as something only male citizens could do. Do you also feel neither of those were Equal Rights issues?
Just because something was defined hundreds of years ago doesn’t mean it should stay that way forever, and it shouldn’t
So just because something was “defined” that means it should never change? Voting used to be defined as only white men voting. By your logic, we shouldn’t have changed that. Same for women having their own bank account or credit cards, everyone wearing seatbelts, smoking areas, etc.
But yes, the reason why marriage is unequal with gays is because of the benefits that come with being married. There’s no other way for gay couples to have those benefits unless they’re legally married. You might not be homophobic, but you’re absolutely wrong
And what does any of that have to do with what I said? Nothing. Zero. Zilch.
I clearly explained how it should have been changed. The courts have said the same thing.
This is doublethink. I’ve typed out several replies so far and deleted each one because I don’t think there’s anything that anyone can say to help you realize your logical fallacy. You said yourself that you won’t change your opinion, which means you’ve shut your mind down and are willing to reject any information in order to maintain a position. That’s no way to go through life, but it’s your life to live. Hopefully some day it becomes clear to you.
It is clear to me. It was an addition of rights and I’m fine with that.
Was the emancipation proclamation also an addition of rights since black people were up until then, slaves? Do black people have additional rights in your mind by having the same freedom as other races, since they didn’t have equal rights to begin with?
Not sure you get what the emancipation. Proclamation was.
Since it only freed the slaves in the south. It very much was an additional right since the northern slaves were still slaves. The two groups were not equal under the law.
Yikes your thinking is so childish. Group A gets 10$ every week while group B always gets 5$. By your logic, once group B gets 10$ they now have “additional rights” by getting 5 “extra” dollars
This is your response to everything. “Well, they were slaves before but now that they’re free that basically means they now have additional rights”
No my dude lol. This isn’t complicated
That makes zero sense and you should obviously missed the point.
It’s an addition if rights THAT OTHER PEOPLE ALREADY HAD THIS GIVING LGBT PEOPLE THESE SAME RIGHTS MADE THEM EQUAL
I disagree.
Where in the constitution does it mention marriage? It doesn’t. It was an overreaching court that made some weird claim it’s a 14th amendment right.
The 10th amendment clearly states rights not defined in the constitution are the rights of the states.
As such the states or congress should have voted on the issue. It’s why roe was overturned as well. Congress should have created a law for abortion.
Your lack of understanding of the law isn’t an issue of my viewpoints. I support our constitution and I don’t support the level system making laws.
Congress need to do their job.
Are you so poorly educated that you think the constitution is the only source of rights?
I don’t think you have an understanding of the law at all based on the ignorance you display here
Thanks for the personal attack. as it shows you don’t grasp what I said at all.
This is why you’re getting downvoted. People traditionally owned other people, too. “Traditional” is not necessarily “equal”.
Can a man marry me? Can a woman marry me? If the answer to both questions isn’t exactly the same, that is an explicit failure of the 14th Amendment Equal Protections clause. Just like “Can I own a white person? Can I own a black person?” Asymmetric rights are the purest example of unequal treatment. It’s no different than when a Republican president told the world that Freedom of Religion is Freedom of Christian Religions and that Pagan Religions deserve no rights. (I wonder if you know which president did that)
Be honest if you oppose equal protections, but don’t bend yourself into a pretzel to pretend persecuting homosexuals is something other than it is.
I’m not a child, so I don’t care about downvotes. It just shows my viewpoint is accurate.
I get you may live for an upvote but I live in the real world where success isn’t measured by a click by others.
I do not know which president said that and that is wrong as the 1st amendment guarantees religious rights. I’m not religious but I’m not anti-theist.
I don’t oppose equal protections. You’re bending yourself into a pretzel trying to make it fit the scenario. It’s why the 14th amendment is poorly written. It’s the escape clause for when someone can’t figure something out.
You say you’re not a child, but then made clear that you enjoy getting downvotes because you think downvotes mean you’re right. Which are you?
For the record, it was George W Bush. He was pushing, and making noise, that Wiccans should not be allowed access to a Wiccan Minister, and those who died should not be allowed Wiccan symbolism on their graves or Wiccan burial traditions because he felt “Wicca isn’t a real religion”. Same shit as “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”. Same shit as not allowing gay marriage in the first place.
“Traditionally” in the US, Religious Rights were NOT symmetrically guaranteed. You most certainly could be alienated for holding a fringe religion. Just look at the history of Mormonism if you must.
Quite literally, things like gay marriage is the heart and soul of why the Equal Protection Clause was added after the Civil War. That Americans were too regressive to stop gay marriage immediately (or sexism wrt voting, but that’s in the Amendment as the one equal protection not being granted) is a statement against the People, not the Clause.
But you don’t see how gay marriage isn’t about Equal Protection. And you ignored the part of my point where it is categorically similar to women’s suffrage and slavery.
You really “no U” doesn’t work here, or anywhere. I’m not bending anything into pretzels. You don’t even have a counter except to reject my points and openly attack the 14th Amendment.
This is a hot take, and one you had better substantiate. The text of the 14th Amendment is absolutely clear, and was written by people who made the intentions of the 14th Amendment just as clear. **Any ** failure to understand the 14th Amendment in text or intent by lawmakers or Justices is done in bad faith. Or as an aforementioned famous Republican said of the Constitution “It’s just a piece of paper”.
This is a circular argument.
You’re making the erroneous claim that marriage is defined in the constitution. It isn’t. That means it falls to the states.
The courts allowing gay marriage is a misstep by the courts which hopefully the current court will correct as they did with roe.
This is an issue for the states and congress to work out.
Have a good day.
Non Sequitur. Nothing you say after this claim attempts to impeach me of circular reasoning. Do you know what a circular argument is?
So you agree that the Constitution has nothing in it that says Marriage is between a man and a woman? Because then there is nothing in it to temper Equal Protections from applying to gay marriage. Or do you believe state and federal law should supersede the rights enshrined in the Constitution?
The Constitution also doesn’t define “Speech” or “Crime” or hell, “State”.
Annnnnd the truth comes out. Welcome to my block list.
Ah so you think the courts should create law. Good to know.
Maybe you should learn how our government functions. Congress creates law. The courts interpret the laws.
I see why you’re so befuddled now. You don’t get how the system works. You think the courts should just create laws and ignore congress.
Congress needs to get off their ass. It’s that simple.