Abraham Lincoln said, "All men are created equal". Why can people throw this quote around all day, then turn around and VOTE on another person's rights? This is not the nation he imagined, discriminating and hating one another.

Comments

Comments

Comments

• Yes, but Lincoln also said that. Lincoln is one of my favorites from US History, so I gave him the credit. :)

  • Report
  

  by Buddy Boy on June 2nd, 2009

• He's one of my favorites, too. And I'm sure you're right that Lincoln must have said it. He sure lived it.
  
  By the way, since I posted my original answer, my former partner, and now fiance (!!!), have gained the right to get married. We live in D.C.

  • Report
  

  by ChrisDC on June 6th, 2010

Comments

Comments

Comments

• I agree with the principle as applied to gay marriage.
  
  However, your statement "There is no difference in genders, and therefore, we should treat all genders the same" in fundamentally flawed as a universal concept.
  
  There ARE differences. To ignore them is folly.
  
  Your example of separate restrooms being uncalled for and needing to be abolished is an example of folly. As is your proposal that medical and leave benefits for pregnant women should be abolished because it treats women differently than men.
  
  Women ARE different than men in very fundamental ways which make benefits such as medical and leave benefits very reasonable and entirely legal.
  
  We use a fundamentally English common law system in the United States (well...except for Louisiana...but that's another discussion), one in which general rules must be able to be adapted to actual reality.
  
  Some may hinge their argument about equal protection under the law for such examples as you provided (restrooms and maternity leave) perhaps using the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, which says in part:
  
  "...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
  
  Under our legal system, adapted from the English common law system as described above, what this really means is:
  
  "...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws unless it would be stupid not to."
  
  This is why school systems are allowed to discriminate against child molesters and sex offenders when they are hiring teachers. It's why convicted felons may lose their right to vote, and why they may be barred from possessing firearms. And it's why there won't be any movement to ban separate restrooms for men and women or to outlaw maternity leave.
  
  The BEST statement I've ever heard of the guiding principle in this is "equal protection jurisprudence requires that similarly situated persons be treated similarly."
  
  I won't get into this in detail, but that's the reason that laws that treat men and women differently are more easily approved than laws treating the races differently. There are situations where men and women are not similarly situated. (Ask any pregnant woman after ten hours of labor.)
  
  Equal protection jurisprudence asks three basic questions:
  
  1) Does a law create categories of people and then treat them differently?
  2) If so, what is the policy goal you are attempting to achieve by doing this? and
  3) Do the operating details of this law actually get you to the goal you want to achieve, or are you just screwing with people?
  
  There is a distinction between treating people differently and treating people fairly. A law is not automatically fair just because it treats everybody the same.

  • Report
  

  by The Chief on September 26th, 2010

• “The BEST statement I've ever heard of the guiding principle in this is "equal protection jurisprudence requires that similarly situated persons be treated similarly."
  
  Exactly. And since the law allows everyone to marry someone of the opposite sex, “similarly situated persons [are being] treated similarly.”

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on November 22nd, 2010

• Certainly the principle applies to both sexes in opposite sex marriage.
  
  However, a case may be made that "similarly situated persons" also applies to same sex marriage, because the only practical difference between same sex and opposite sex marriage is the matter of procreation.
  
  And there are a great many people in opposite sex marriages who have not, do not, or will not ever have children for a variety of reasons, be they age, medical, choice, or what have you.

  • Report
  

  by The Chief on November 22nd, 2010

• “And there are a great many people in opposite sex marriages who have not, do not, or will not ever have children for a variety of reasons, be they age, medical, choice, or what have you.”
  
  How is that relevant to this analysis? As we agreed, “equal protection jurisprudence requires that similarly situated persons be treated similarly.” Yet, you are now ignoring the treatment of the law and instead focusing on the individual choices of certain individuals.
  
  Do you think that it is a violation of the equal protection clause for a state to not issue a drivers license to a blind person? If not, why?

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on November 23rd, 2010

• It's relevant because the topic at hand was gay marriage, wherein I was agreeing with you.
  
  The point where we differed was expressed with my statement in regards to your statement that there is no difference in genders, therefore all genders should be treated the same. There ARE fundamental differences. Some make a practical difference with respect to how people are treated under the law, some do not.
  
  Marriage is, by definition, an individual choice of certain individuals. And since there are civil laws with respect to marriage, I fail to see how I am "ignoring the treatment of the law" in favor of "focusing on the individual choices of certain individuals".
  
  The separate issue you bring up with respect to not issuing a driver's license to a blind person doesn't have anything to do with this (marriage). It falls under the "...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws unless it would be stupid not to" aspect I mentioned before.
  
  I could dig up more on that (drivers licensing) if you wish, but it's deviating from the aspect of gay marriage which I was discussing. However, if you wish to broaden the discussion to the "All men are created equal" statement in the original quesiton, so we may discuss other aspects of equality under the law (such as your blind man/drivers license example), then I am open to that as well.

  • Report
  

  by The Chief on November 23rd, 2010

• “The point where we differed was expressed with my statement in regards to your statement that there is no difference in genders, therefore all genders should be treated the same.”
  
  My first post was a facetious comment in order to make a point. The reason why not allowing gay marriage is not a violation of the equal protection clause is the same as the reason why having separate bathrooms for men and women is not a violation.
  
  “Marriage is, by definition, an individual choice of certain individuals.”
  
  Whether to marry or not is an individual choice, but marriage is something created by the state (and what was created is marriage between a man and a woman). Saying that it is a violation of equal protection to not allow gay marriage because some heterosexual couples choose to marry but not procreate would require you to ignore the actions of the state (the entity that needs to give equal protection), and instead focus on the actions of the individual.
  
  In terms of our separate bathroom example, this would be like saying “having separate bathrooms is a violation of equal protection because some people would choose not to use public bathrooms.
  
  “I could dig up more on that (drivers licensing) if you wish, but it's deviating from the aspect of gay marriage which I was discussing.”
  
  The drivers license example was given to discuss the issue (equal protection) divorced from the bias that comes with people passionate about an issue. It is no different than the bathroom example. I don’t care if we stick to the bathroom example or use something else.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on November 23rd, 2010

• Ahhh...I get the facetiousness of your original statement then!
  
  However, I tend to disagree with you on the aspect of not allowing gay marriage NOT being a violation of the equal protection clause for the same reason separate bathrooms for men and women is not a violation.
  
  The case for gay marriage with that respect has to do with the PRIVATE lives of the individuals as a family unit, to start with. The law is only concerned about what they accept as a LEGAL civil union and all that comes along with it in terms of rights and privileges.
  
  Public restroom separation by gender, in contrast, is entirely centered around giving people reasonable personal privacy in which to attend to their calls of nature and associated ablutions. Since this involves at least partial disrobing in the process, the expectation of personal privacy also includes privacy from the opposite gender.
  
  Granted, doors are awesome in that capability. And also granted, it will be interesting to see how people deal with this in the future, as a natural outcome of greater social acceptance of homosexuals and homosexuality within our society.
  
  But gender separation serves a very practical purpose within our society with respect to public restrooms. As such, it will continue, and it is entirely legal to do so based on those practical and reasonable considerations.
  
  I know the aspect of marriage as a civil institution is codified by the states. That is my point. The decision to marry is an individual one, but the laws define who and under what circumstances people may marry.
  
  The question is, and the movement is growing year by year towards resolving whether or not this should be changed in the courts, whether or not the government has the right to deny same sex marriage as a civil institution. Currently, outside of religious considerations, I don't see where the government has a leg to stand on for denying it.
  
  It's not really a matter of IF the government will change it's position on this matter, either. It's a matter of WHEN. The process isn't just a legal one...it's a social one as well. It will happen when society is at a point where such a change can not only be tolerated, but accepted as a rule.
  
  I understand now about your example of the drivers license. However, on this subject, I think you'll find that passion doesn't have anything to do with my position. Logic does.
  
  I am not homosexual, therefore I don't have a direct, invested concern with respect to this. However, over the decades I have seen a great many changes with respect to this. I've not only seen the arguments for and against, I've experienced them in a very direct manner as a part of my life and my jobs. I have yet to see, outside of social acceptance issues, where homosexuality has anything to do with whether or not the Sailor who served with me could or could not do his job. I have yet to see where homosexuality made a difference in the basic human nature of a person as a "good" or "bad" character.
  
  Granted, my personal views on the subject of homosexuality are, essentially, against it. But that doesn't change the fact that sexual orientation DOESN'T have anything to do with these other things.
  
  Because there is no practical reason to deny homosexuals civil marriage, outside of social acceptance, it WILL change. It's just a matter of time.

  • Report
  

  by The Chief on November 23rd, 2010

• “But gender separation serves a very practical purpose within our society with respect to public restrooms.”
  
  As it does with marriage. States recognize marriage for one primary reason: to lessen the burden on the state of subsiding children. States have a strong interest in ensuring that children are born into an environment that will be able to care for that child. And conversely, states have an interest in discouraging children from being born into an environment in which their care will become the burden of the state. States have done this through MARRIAGE.
  
  “The decision to marry is an individual one, but the laws define who and under what circumstances people may marry.”
  
  Yes, and equal protection focuses on WHY the states pass the laws they do.
  
  
  “Currently, outside of religious considerations, I don't see where the government has a leg to stand on for denying it.”
  
  Really? You don’t see why states want to ensure that a child is financially supported by a parent, rather than that cost being billed to the state?
  
  
  “I have yet to see where homosexuality made a difference in the basic human nature of a person as a "good" or "bad" character.”
  
  What does this have to do with the topic at hand? Whether a person is good or bad has nothing to do with whether that person can conceive a child with someone of the same sex.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on November 23rd, 2010

• And what of marriages between heterosexual couples who have no intention whatsoever of having and raising children? Your argument falls apart there, with respect to state recognition of marriages. By your example, such marriages should not be allowed.
  
  And there is nothing which says that lesbian couples cannot have children by artificial insemenation, nor that gay couples cannot adopt any of the many children who have no parents.
  
  The institution of marriage even among homosexual couples can easily fulfill the tast of lessoning the burden on the state with respect to caring for children.
  
  As for "You don’t see why states want to ensure that a child is financially supported by a parent, rather than that cost being billed to the state", I don't see where your argument is valid, in light of these facts. Homosexual couples are perfectly able to raise children so the state doesn't have to.
  
  The aspect of "good" and "bad" are, ultimately, the arguments people are really settling down to with respect to homosexual marriage.

  • Report
  

  by The Chief on November 25th, 2010

Comments

• But our founding fathers(yes, I know Lincoln wasn't one of them) formed this nation on the belief that EVERY man should have the same rights and opportunities as everyone else. What do they say to that?

  • Report
  

  by Buddy Boy on May 27th, 2009

• Well, they didn't allow women to vote when they founded this nation either, yet they founded it under those words. I think they said that because they weren't getting equal rights back in England but when they came here they only cared about those rights - basically I'm saying that they were being hypocritical because they had this great ideal but they didn't actually want to follow it. Like, "Equal rights to all men! Except women and children and homosexuals, etc.!"

  • Report
  

  by nishaphi on May 31st, 2009

Comments

• i'd better start eating prunes, huh? :)

  • Report
  

  by Bob on October 17th, 2009

• HOTTT

  • Report
  

  by pooponme on October 18th, 2009

Comments

Comments

• No, majority does not always rule. That is not the way our government and society is designed. The majority cannot, for example, make it legal to shoot people because you dislike their skin color. Even if 99% of the people want that law, it is not permitted because the Constitution is designed to protect the rights of all citizens (including gays).
   
  "Majority rules" is fine if you're trying to decide whether to go out for pizza or Chinese. It's way too simplistic for a real government.

  • Report
  

  by HasntBeen on June 10th, 2009

• This is incorrect. The only thing that prevents a law being passed that allows the killing of others based on skin color is the Constitution. If 99% of people wanted to change this, then they would have enough votes to change the Constitution.
  ...
  Of course, 99% of people would never agree with this law. However, my point is simply that government gets its power from the people.

  • Report
  

  by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on June 10th, 2009

• That is still incorrect. The law gets its authority partly from the people, but also from abstract principles of justice, equality, and equal rights. You cannot vote those out of the constitution, or you end up with something which is no longer America at all.
   
  In addition, if the people spit in the face of those values, their vote is morally invalid, regardless of what they want.
   
  That is, in fact, what happened in California recently: people ignored the values the country is built on, and voted with their ancient bigotry, which has not yet been expunged. In time, it will be. Just like with slavery and the oppression of women, the oppression of gays is on its way out, and no amount of spitting into the wind will stop it.

  • Report
  

  by HasntBeen on June 10th, 2009

• You seem to have a very weak grasp on the structure of the United States. America is an entity created by a Constitution. That entity will exist so long as we abide by that document. This is true even if that document is amended to deny rights to certain people.
  ...
  You can argue "morality" all you want, but morality is a subjective concept. Most people get their "morality" from religion or government. Thus, if something is supported by 99% of the population, it can only be immoral in the eyes of 1% of the people.
  ...
  And that is not what happened in California. Just because someone does not want to retroactively apply a law to people who do not fall within the class of people intended to benefit from the law, does not mean they are bigots. Like it or not, there is a difference between genders. Marriage is the mechanism in which a state creates a node within a family tree. It is biologically impossible for a gay couple to create such a node.

  • Report
  

  by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on June 10th, 2009

• You seem to have a very weak understanding of the Constitution, the principles of morality, logic, and proposition 8 -- how do you fit that much wrong into one head? It's a mystery.
   
  Prop 8 did not "retroactively apply a law" -- it fixed a definition of marriage into law with the explicit intent of depriving a significant minority a right guaranteed both by clear moral thinking and the Constitution.
   
  The biological argument is worn out and has been repeatedly discredited. You have to have been very out of touch not to notice this: would you deny the right of sterile heterosexual couples to marry? Of course not. It's a straw man.
   
  If morality is subjective, presumably you'd be OK with somebody shooting you, because in their eyes, it's the right thing to do. Yes? Or would that be immoral?

  • Report
  

  by HasntBeen on June 10th, 2009

• On the contrary. I am a California licensed attorney who has worked for the U.S. Department of Justice, primarily dealing with constitutional issues. You calling me wrong does not make it so. Moreover, the fact that you are not making any specific factual arguments suggests you have no real basis for your viewpoint.
  …
  I never said that Prop 8 retroactively applied the law. In fact, I said the exact opposite. Prop 8 prevented laws that don’t apply to homosexuals from being retroactively applied to them.
  …
  And the only reason you think “[t]he biological argument is worn out” is because you cannot discredit it. Two people of the same sex cannot procreate. If you have evidence to the contrary, please share.

  • Report
  

  by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on June 10th, 2009

• You ask: “would you deny the right of sterile heterosexual couples to marry?” I don’t have that power. But if you are asking whether I believe a heterosexual couple that truly cannot produce a biological child should be treated the same as gay couples in relation to marriage law, the answer is yes.
  …
  You state: “If morality is subjective, presumably you'd be OK with somebody shooting you, because in their eyes, it's the right thing to do. Yes? Or would that be immoral?” No, I would find that immoral. But again, morality is subjective. What I find moral may not be what others find moral. That is the rub.

  • Report
  

  by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on June 10th, 2009

• Wow, an attorney who does "absolute relativity" on morality! No wonder the law is so screwed up sometimes. You really think there's no morality except as defined by the subject? Is that what they taught you in liar school?
   
  So if that's the case, what is the value of values at all? Why bother having principles like "equal rights", or "justice", or "freedom"? Why not just let anarchy rule the day.
   
  I actually don't believe you're an attorney, sorry. Your arguments are weak. You tried to use the biology fallacy to somehow support the notion that gays should be denied marriage. Since there's nobody who thinks sterile couples should be denied marriage, that's a dead argument. Obviously. Then you tried to obscure that conclusion by disconnecting it from the point you were making.
   
  I'm glad you're not defending me on anything.
   
  Just out of curiosity, what does it feel like to be an American who wants to deny basic rights to others who have done nothing to harm you? I'm curious if you feel less American somehow.

  • Report
  

  by HasntBeen on June 10th, 2009

• You know it is always easy to spot the people who are making arguments which are based on nothing but personal opinion. That is because, like you, they always make two forms of faulty arguments. First, they rely primarily on ad hominem attacks, which by definition are unmeritorious. Second, they may counter-arguments to arguments that were never made by the other party in the conversation.
  …
  You ask: “You really think there's no morality except as defined by the subject?” No, I know morality is subjective. You obviously think otherwise, but why don’t you provide a logical argument to support your conclusion. If there is an objective, universal morality, what is the source of that morality?

  • Report
  

  by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on June 11th, 2009

• You ask: “So if that's the case, what is the value of values at all? Why bother having principles like "equal rights", or "justice", or "freedom"? Why not just let anarchy rule the day.” You are obviously trying to make some sort of point with this statement, but you have failed miserably. The importance of all of these things is to create a cohesive civilized society.

  • Report
  

  by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on June 11th, 2009

• Whether you believe I am an attorney is irrelevant to me. Your erroneous belief has no affect on my license to practice law, and it does not affect me one bit that you wouldn’t want me to represent you. Of course, these ad hominem attacks are completely off subject. Are you ever going to actually make an argument and support it? For example, if you think that marriage has nothing to do with family cohesiveness and procreation, why not support your conclusion with actual evidence? Every law is passed for a reason, and there are records of the legislative intent behind nearly every law. So instead of arguing your opinion, why not provide evidence to support our conclusion?

  • Report
  

  by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on June 11th, 2009

• And I do not know what it is like to want to deny basic rights to Americans. But if I ever meet someone who does, I will be sure to ask for you.

  • Report
  

  by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on June 11th, 2009

• Here's a bottom line: BOTH of you have a right to an opinion, even if its the OPPOSITE. :)
  
  Prop 8 didn't pass. For Hasn't Been to say/hint it should because she/he or all gays think so, doesn't resemble Democracy.
  
  Which leads us back to Majority rule, regardless for a Prop or deciding between Chines take out or Italian.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on June 11th, 2009

• Opps, my typing mistake: Prop 8 did pass.
  
  So it should read: Prop 8 did pass. For Hasn't Been to say/hint it shouldn't because she/he or all gays think so doesn't resemble Democracy.
  
  ohlook I am nolonger Anonymous: Is it just me, or was their other Californians who were confused by the pitch on Prop 8 stance wise? The way you'd expect it to be written ideally would be 'Yes, I'm for gay marriage,' or 'NO I'm against gay marriage.'

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on June 12th, 2009

• The proposition was whether or not we should add a provision to the California constitution that defined marriage as between man and woman. So yes means you want to add the provision, no meant you do not want to add the provision.

  • Report
  

  by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on June 13th, 2009

Comments

Comments

• those damn republicans like lincoln, so tyrannical!!!! what brilliant thing was it that lee harvey oswald said, "sic semper tyrannis" after he shot lincoln (my avatar), which meant, "thus to all tyrannts". while i'm sure you greatly would respect oswald, he family disowned him after the assassination.

  • Report
  

  by Bob on October 17th, 2009

Comments

Comments