Court Misapplied "Separate but Equal" in gay marriage
Separate but equal refers to a public education policy in the '60's. It was determined to be unconstitutional because there never was, nor could there be equal treatment.
Here's the problem with applying this standard to gay marriage: "Separate" refers to geography: location, and facilities. In Gay marriage, the only thing "separate" could apply to is the distinction between marriage and civil unions. These have nothing to do with location or facilities.
A better standard would be different but equal. They are different names for what is essentially the same thing. Different but equal has withstood the test on the Constitution since it's birth. For example, there are different types of citizens -- native and naturalized -- who have essentially equal rights under the Constitution, save for being elected president. Now, immigrants may face discrimination, but it's not caused by their type of citizenship.
Classifying gay marriage as a civil union means that on most legal documents, there will be a new box for some couples to check. That's about it. And, unlike segregation in the '60s, abuses will be noted and amplified in the media, and watchdog groups will be ready to defend victims of discrimination. In this lawsuit-driven society, institutionalized abuses are much less likely to occur.
Other rights abuses(discrimination, unequal treatment) are likely to occur. They occur today. But they will occur regardless of the name of gay couple's union. Mr. and Mr. Jones (married) face the same prejudice as Mr. and Mr. Jones (civilly united).
Also a contrast to separate but equal in the 60's is that the subjects, the black students, had no control over their situation. In contrast, gay couples, being adult citizens, have all the rights of due process. Black kids just had to accept unequal treatment for years. Gay couples will have the ability to stand up for themselves instantlynotifying media, lawyers, advocacy groups, etc.
Now, consider the positives of different but equal: The rights of the minority are respected, and the culture of the majority is respected as well. Keeping the word "marriage" in it's traditional definition pacifies (for the lack of a better word) the majority, giving them the feeling that they are treated with as much respect as the minority.
RE: Court Misapplied "Separate but Equal" in gay marriage
Quote:
Separate but equal refers to a public education policy in the '60's.
"Seperate but equal" dates back to the 1890s, Plessy vs Ferguson, I think, and was overturned on the grounds that seperate was inherently unequal in Brown vs Board of Education, in 1958 or 59.
Same gender marriage is a lot like asking "how many legs does a dog have, if you call the tail a leg?" Answer is still always four, because a tail is a tail, no matter what you change the name to. It isn't a marriage, no matter who calls it one. I have no problem with civil unions, I don't care what you do in private.
RE: Court Misapplied "Separate but Equal" in gay marriage
Quote:
"Seperate but equal" dates back to the 1890s, Plessy vs Ferguson, I think, and was overturned on the grounds that seperate was inherently unequal in Brown vs Board of Education, in 1958 or 59.
Right. I was thinking about when integration was inflaming the country. My bad!
RE: Court Misapplied "Separate but Equal" in gay marriage
Explain to me how a ruling that constitutionally upheld and voted on with a referendum and was voted in in 13 states in the 2000 elections and was deemed constitutional by the SCOTUS can now be overturned by ONE activist judge who has yet to prove his stance that it's unconstitional.
RE: Court Misapplied "Separate but Equal" in gay marriage
Quote:
Explain to me how a ruling that constitutionally upheld and voted on with a referendum and was voted in in 13 states in the 2000 elections and was deemed constitutional by the SCOTUS can now be overturned by ONE activist judge who has yet to prove his stance that it's unconstitional.
I'm not really sure. In Ohio, the referendum amended the state constitution. Therefore, a court cannot find that it violates the state constitution (duh, tright?)
My guess in California is that what was passed was a bill, and probably not an amendment to their constitution. Therefore, their supreme court could rule that it violates the state constitution. If I weren't so lazy, I'd Google it and find out for sure.
RE: Court Misapplied "Separate but Equal" in gay marriage
One of the most twisted and illogical arguments that they use in kookafornia is the ruling of Loving-vs-Virginia which was a lawsuit brought out that eventually allowed interracial marriages in virginia.
These twisted pervert freaks actually equate a normal man and woman of different ethnicities to two limp wristed interior decorators who want to pack fudge and teach it to your kids.
RE: Court Misapplied "Separate but Equal" in gay marriage
I agree with you, -1. Call it whatever you want and be done with it. Getting bent out of shape over a particular word is ridiculous. It's the relationship that counts, not the legal terminology!
RE: Court Misapplied "Separate but Equal" in gay marriage
Quote:
ORIGINAL: Aught Six
I agree with you, -1. Call it whatever you want and be done with it. Getting bent out of shape over a particular word is ridiculous. It's the relationship that counts, not the legal terminology!
In my heart, I feel homosexuality is immoral and wrong, but in practicaltiy, changing times cannot be stopped. My ideal situation is that change occurs in baby-steps, with pleanty of compromise along the way.
That's why, although I'm dead set against homosexuality, I am pro-civil union.
Court Misapplied "Separate but Equal" in gay marriage
