Re: OT - This just in...

From: Jay Vance (info_at_vancedigital.com)
Date: 09/11/04 

Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 11:45:38 -0700

> Cause that's the law in the USA. The state must provide a reason to
> discriminate against gays (Romer v. Evans). It's something fairly new
> (1996), but our society has already taken that 'first' step in questioning
> history. Prior to 1996, you were correct.

I don't believe this is an accurate characterization of Romer v. Evans.
Colorado voters had enacted "Amendment 2", which read: Neither the state
of Colorado, through any of its branches or departments, nor any of its
agencies, political subdivisions, municipalities or school districts, shall
enact, adopt or enforce any statute, regulation, ordinance or policy whereby
homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or
relationships shall constitute or otherwise be the basis of, or entitle any
person or class of persons to have or claim any minority status, quota
preferences, protected status or claim of discrimination. This Section of
the Constitution shall be in all respects self-executing.

The Supreme Court declared THIS PARTICULAR AMENDMENT unconstitutional
because it attempted to nullify laws that had ALREADY BEEN ENACTED in some
cities in Colorado--none of which, by the way, had anything to do with gay
marriage. SCOTUS ruled that the amendment attempted to deny gays access to
the political process which they were otherwise entitled to--and that's
clearly wrong. But Romer v. Evans does not require society to grant a
privilege to homosexuals which they do not currently possess, only
preventing society from TAKING AWAY existing privileges.

Jay

> Apart from the law, on purely ethical grounds, we should always place the
burden on those who wish to discriminate.

Without addressing the merit of that particular argument, the fact is that
the state (meaning "the government," not a particular state of the Union)
did not invent the definition of marriage and therefore cannot re-define it.
The state is simply recognizing something that is a fundamental human
concept that is universal to the human race. You can dismiss that as being
too ephemeral or intangible, but as I've already said, there are some things
I cannot adequately describe yet they exist nonetheless. Marriage as a
union of a man and a woman is an institution that transcends cultures,
religions, and eras. It is not discrimination for the state to recognize
the existence of an institution which the state did not create.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT:Promises.Promises
    ... discriminate against the above, and none of these groups has crossed ... I disagree, gays have legal protections in many jurisdictions, I'd bet ... atheists would too in some cases, e.g. being fired from most jobs due ... poison has already demonstrated they don't care about their health. ...
    (alt.guitar.amps)
  • Re: OT:Promises.Promises
    ... discriminate against the above, and none of these groups has crossed ... I disagree, gays have legal protections in many jurisdictions, I'd bet ... atheists would too in some cases, e.g. being fired from most jobs due ... poison has already demonstrated they don't care about their health. ...
    (alt.guitar.amps)
  • Re: OT:Promises.Promises
    ... discriminate against the above, and none of these groups has crossed ... I disagree, gays have legal protections in many jurisdictions, I'd bet ... atheists would too in some cases, e.g. being fired from most jobs due ... poison has already demonstrated they don't care about their health. ...
    (alt.guitar.amps)
  • Re: OT:Promises.Promises
    ... crossed the threshold wherein those who discriminate against them ... I disagree, gays have legal protections in many jurisdictions, I'd ... bet atheists would too in some cases, ... poison has already demonstrated they don't care about their health. ...
    (alt.guitar.amps)
Quantcast