I call NOM to a Live Peaceful Debate on Same Sex Marriage

Call the National Organization for Marriage and tell them to meet with the LGBT community and supporters for a real dialogue.

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• LGBT
• Gay
• Rights
• Equality

[whyuahater3]

YOU'RE AWESOME! Thank you!

[kenballer00]

@incredulosity

Therefore, marriage is defined by over a century's worth of federal law to be between a man and a woman for the purpose of responsible procreation and rearing of children. Gays and straights or men and women can equally enter into the institution of marriage as traditionally defined by law. Anything outside of this framework is asking for special rights just like with polygamy not equal rights

[kenballer00]

@incredulosity

Again, if you are claiming there is a violation of equal protection clause of the 14th amendment because group X and Y are being segregated, then you are relying purely on court cases to make that conclusion. Discrimination is defined as treating group X and Y differently which is what our constitution actually references not calling it something different because its fundamentally different or equally separating the two groups in different areas.

[incredulosity]

@kenballer00 As I said before, incest is illegal, whether consensual or not. So it actually IS about having a sexual relationship. You can't argue for marriage equality for adult incestous couples unless you first prove that their relationships should be as lawful as out-of-family relationships, which will be hard considering that bans on incest are not nearly as invasive and restrictive as gender restrictions.

[incredulosity]

@kenballer00 No, I don't have to rely solely on anything. One part of Perry v. Schwarzenegger has been proving that the arguments made against same-sex marriage are irrational and factually erroneous. This doesn't have to be done with case law. Another has been bringing to light the history of heterosupremacist laws in the US and how they have negatively affected gay people, and similarly, the negative affect that current discrimination is having.

[incredulosity]

@kenballer00 ... and a law that allows group 'X' to do 'A,' but only allows group 'Y' to do 'B,' is in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

[incredulosity]

@kenballer00 Well, I've been appealing to the idea behind the Brown decision all along: separate rights for different groups of people is unconstitutional. Further, Loving demonstrates that it's not what the law says, but how it applies. Sophists may attempt to couch discriminatory restrictions in terms of equality (anyone can get married within their race, everyone can get married to the opposite gender, etc.), but the test for equal protection is HOW the law applies... (continued)

[kenballer00]

@incredulosity

in addition, incestuous couples already of a claim to equal rights because its not about procreation or having a sexual relationships since its not about marriage but equality. What you are talking about with bans on incest is a private situation not a public one that deals with contracts. Since there is no requirement to procreate, then incestuous couples would have an argument for equal rights as well

[kenballer00]

@incredulosity

In conclusion, since you are relying on the Brown and/or Loving decision in order to reference or claim that there is discrimination going on, You have no choice ,as well as I when it comes to marriage, but to rely purely on case law to claim that there is or is not a right to gay marriage whether its due process claims or equal protection claims

[kenballer00]

I am sorry I think you misunderstood me. What I was saying is that you could not claim that there was discrimination at all in this situation without the Romer case because the sexes can equally marry each other and vice versa. If you are going to say its the same argument in Loving, then again I told you that without the Brown decision the Loving court would not be able to come to that conclusion. Segregation would not be deemed a form of discrimination without the Brown decision.