http://www.politicalforum.com/4995688-post518.html My point is they have the same rights as everyone else, but that the equal protection law is not regarding issues of sex or sexual orientation.
Supreme Court gonna decide... Defense of Marriage Act heads to US Supreme Court May 31, 2012 A battle over a federal law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman appears headed for the Supreme Court after an appeals court ruled Thursday that denying benefits to married gay couples is unconstitutional.
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. If there are laws related to sex or sexual orientation, then the equal protection clause applies to those laws as much as to any other laws. As an aside: Are you aware that the person pictured in your avatar is a homosexual?
The above quoted amendment was written and passed by Republicans. It does not refer to, nor was intended grant special rights to those who are homosexuals. The federal DOMA and the 32+ states that have passed their own DOMA laws, many by a vote of the people, none deny homosexuals the right to marry. Many grant homosexual rights to civil unions. What is in question is the redefining of marriage. To redefine it they way the GLBT lobby wants to do, would only create restrictions on the first amendment right to freedom of religion. The person in my avatar is Sheldon Cooper. He is a heterosexual. Jim Parsons only came out gay last month. What he does in the privacy of his bedroom is none of mine or your business. I still like his acting. It doesn't make him a bad person because he has unnatural urges. Hopefully he we seek treatment for that. The Green Lantern is not gay. Only the alternate universe Green Lantern is. What difference it makes I don't know. Is that one of his superpowers? Does he catch criminals and boink them in the rear end? Stupid. I know it is important for the GLBT community to change the sexuality of historical figures, add them into movie and tv and written works as a means of gaining acceptence of perverse sexual practices. Again, frankly, I couldn't care less what perverts do in their bedroom. If gays and lesbians want people to stay out of their bedroom, then they need to stop throwing their sexuality into our faces.
As an independent, I have no use for partisans of any flavor. I am not fooled for a moment that Republicans have my best interests at heart. I do not agree that they are asking for "special rights". Those laws do, however, create a suspect classification based on the sex of the parties seeking to marry. Not 'many'. Only five states use the term "civil unions". Of course, what gets obscured in all the rhetoric of opponents is that the government's CIVIL recognition of marital UNIONS are exactly that: civil unions. Why do we need a separate term for same-sex couples? I can think of no good reason, and plenty that are very suspect. I don't call expanding those covered by removing a restriction "redefining". I do, however, make note of the usual tendency of opponents to make exaggerations about the situation. I call BS on that. Discrimination is not a "religions practice". What you want isn't freedom of religion, but freedom to discriminate using religion as a convenient excuse. Sheldon Cooper is not a person, but a fictional character. The person in your avatar is Jim Parsons. Agreed. Saying someone isn't a bad person while you pass judgment on their urges as "unnatural" all in one sentence. Priceless. Whether or not he does is not any of your business. I see. So in your estimation gay people are "unnatural", "should seek treatment", and are "stupid". (and apparently "boink people in the rear end") Now I remember why I've been ignoring you. More of the same. The fact remains that you have an actor who is gay as your avatar. It is quite clear that you despise gay people, but clearly aren't above exploiting their likenesses for your own benefit. I can see no point in our continuing this conversation.
