Visit the Archives for U.S. Politics Online -- U.S. Politics Online . net
Secretary of Defense
I don't know how you arrive this conclusion. Equal protection boils down to applying the law consistently, regardless of how someone is "situated". The whole point is to reinforce the notion of blind justice and avoid subjective governance where everyone gets a different deal depending on who they are or how they are "situated".Originally Posted by goober
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort." -- Robert E. Heinlein
President
Think about it.
The law is applied differently to different people, the first time offender is treated with leniency, the habitual criminal is treated harshly.
Any two people can't file taxes jointly, or claim the privileges of marriage, just because another two people who are married do so.
But a legally married couple should be entitled to do so.
And treating one legally married couple differently from another becomes an equal protection issue.
Secretary of Defense
Those are specific factors regarding the circumstances of the crime in question and the degree to which a person can be considered accountable for their decisions. But in general, equal protection prohibits the law from discriminating based on extraneous details of a person's situation (whether they are rich or poor, black or white, male or female)
Agreed. I'd also add that progressive income tax isn't, necessarily, a violation of equal protection (though I consider it bad law in a variety of other ways). In my view, tax law does become a violation of EP, and a radical expansion of legislative power, when it is overloaded with exemptions and incentives. Especially when the exemptions and incentives serve primarily to manipulate behavior rather than to balance the tax burden.Any two people can't file taxes jointly, or claim the privileges of marriage, just because another two people who are married do so.
But a legally married couple should be entitled to do so. And treating one legally married couple differently from another becomes an equal protection issue.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort." -- Robert E. Heinlein
Secretary of State
Being gay is a lifestyle choice ...
Moderates are not republicans
Secretary of Defense
That is debatable. What is not debatable is that things such are religion and gun advocacy are lifestyle choices... yet they are constitutionally protected. In this country we value things such as freedom of choice and the liberty to live your life as you see fit... even if there are other people that disagree with your personal lifestyle choices. Well... at least some of us value that freedom and liberty...
"We're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers." Romney Campaign
Secretary of State
Being gay is not a right owning a gun is.........If being a pervert is genetic shouldn't we know the gene then?
Moderates are not republicans
Secretary of Defense
Being gay is a right. See Lawrence V Texas. The right to enter into the same civil legal contracts as your neighbor is also a right. See the 14th amendment. And once again... it doesn't matter if it is genetic or not.... at least to someone that actually values freedom and liberty more than they value their own personal prejudices.
"We're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers." Romney Campaign
Secretary of State
LMAO It matter if it is genetic cause then the only reason Gay people want special rights is to try and normalize their behavior.....
Moderates are not republicans
President
Nobody is arguing that you cannot be gay.
You're not prevented from entering into a marriage contract.
You are simply obligated to meet the terms of the contract, which requires you marry one person of the opposite sex.
Guns don't kill people. Dads with beautiful daughters kill people.
Secretary of Defense
No. Gay people want EQUAL rights to protect their lives. Marriage is the only legal contract that allows you to make the person of your choice LEGAL KIN. It is the only contract that allows you to protect your financial assets in many complicated situations. To have those same rights is not special. It is EQUAL.
"We're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers." Romney Campaign
Secretary of State
They have equal rights...they can marry a person of the opposite sex Just like me. What rights are they denied????
Moderates are not republicans
Secretary of Defense
It's always hilarious to see these self appointed defenders of marriage actually advocating that people enter into sham marriages.
The right denied is free association. The right to enter into a contract with who I want to... not you want me to. I'm sure you can name the other myriad of contracts that define the genders of those who may enter into them. Take your time. I'm guessing that next you will say that if Florida creates a law that says you can only make an opposite sex person your Medical Power of Attorney... that law is completely constitutional?
"We're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers." Romney Campaign
President
And we're right back to that argument....
Once again, you are not prevented from marrying someone of the opposite sex. You want to marry someone of the same sex which is a change to the contract requirements.
Incidentally, if you think a simple marriage contract allows what you think it does, you haven't been paying much attention to things. Many of the "protections" which used to be afforded by marriage are gone - in large part due to the feminist contingent. Sadly, what will likely happen if gays are allowed to alter the marriage contract requirements is we will see a change in how medical insurance is applied. After all, statistically, homosexual men do have a shorter lifespan and are more disposed to certain diseases. That's not a political statement, it is objective fact and yes, actuaries WILL take it into consideration.
Guns don't kill people. Dads with beautiful daughters kill people.
Secretary of State
who said you couldn't associate with anyone? You can better a legal contract with anyone....Just like insurance doesn't HAVE to cover anyone....By the way that called a living will.....You dont have to be family to pull the plug
Moderates are not republicans
President
Nope - nobody is denying free association. Not in the least.
Yes you have a right to contract any number of things but you must meet the conditions of the contract. The marriage contract has 3 parties: The husband, the wife and the state. If any one of those parties does not wish to sign the contract, then it does not get signed. In the case of marriage, the state has determined the other two parties must be of the opposite sex.
You're not asking for the same rights - you're asking for special treatment based upon whom you want to fuck.
Guns don't kill people. Dads with beautiful daughters kill people.
Posting Permissions
2Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks