- Jun 26, 2007
Equal protection, if you like, it's the same thing, only reason i referred to equal treatment is because it's in our constitution, it means the same thing.Originally posted by: MH2007
My understanding is that the Fourteenth Amendment would prevent that from happening in any way that I can readily conceive.Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Ok, so if the US decided to discriminate against YOU in such a way, you wouldn't demand equal treatment? (actually you define it as protection in the US but the meaning is the same).Originally posted by: MH2007
I didn't want to expand this to a (potentially dragged on) discussion about rights but stick to the specific examples of what the campaigns are doing, but I'll indulge a bit.Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
So you don't think that equal treatment is a right?Originally posted by: MH2007
As of now I remain undecided, but the more I learn about this the more I am troubled. There are people that feel that things will change for themselves and their families negatively if they do not pass Prop 8, and they have a right to be heard. Even though I disagree with their sentiment it is not right that their voice has been suppressed as it has through the lies and inappropriate actions of State officials.Originally posted by: Harvey
Good. There's hope for you. I'm straight. Nothing's going to change for me, one way or the other. Please don't vote to eliminate a right of some of my friends and business relationships.Originally posted by: MH2007
I am still leaning to vote No, but some people that have yet to vote on this Proposition are being lied to brazenly by the No on 8 campaign and may be influenced by those lies. People deserve to make their decision based on facts.
The constituency of the state of California has the right to voice what they feel should be in the Constitution of the State of California, including a restrictive definition of marriage. Obviously, this a very old right, much older than the right to marry that gays gained when judges recently interpreted the State Constitution to grant them that right.
Is this equal treatment? To you and me this may seem obvious that it is not. But for many people marriage between a man and a woman is intrinsically different than gay marriage so they should NOT be treated equally. Obviously, equal treatment regarding gay marriage is currently an unobtainable ideal. I don't know how to portray this more obviously than to point to the most relevant example that 96% of the States in the US do not allow gay marriage.
But to answer your question succinctly, no. In my opinion at least, equal treatment is not a right. It is an ideal.
Basically you're saying that segregation can be re-instituted and it would be no probleme because that is what the law says, discrimination is up to the people of the states?
If I do suffer in some way in the future that I perceive to be discrimination, then my recourse would likely be to take it to the courts as the was done to obtain right for gays to marry. At that point it would likely be parties with rights that are in conflict, which is exactly what we have in Prop 8.
Like I said before, I believe that Equal Treatment is not a right, it is an ideal. We can all want it but in reality, even as the law evolved, it will likely never be achieved.
So basically, you're not too keen on the constitution? Except when it suits your purposes, i suppose?