Here's the thing: Gay couples don't have equal rights. Gay people do

Comments

9 comments posted
"We the people" never had

"We the people" never had gays in mind. Stop twisting history!

George Bradford's picture
Posted by George Bradford (not verified) on 19 June 2011 - 11:22pm
"We the people never had gays

"We the people never had gays in mind" Give me a fucking break. That is about the most bigoted thing I've heard this decade.

LP22's picture
Posted by LP22 (not verified) on 14 August 2012 - 10:56am
you're a twit

how do you know there were no gays in the days of George Washington?

feslenraster's picture
Posted by feslenraster (not verified) on 8 September 2012 - 6:18am
You're proving how stupid you are...

There were gays in George Washington's day and believe it or not there were gays even before George Washington's day! My goodness! Pick up a book and shut your mouth.

O's picture
Posted by O (not verified) on 16 April 2013 - 12:17am
Memo to George: We still are the people

But don't let us keep you from your nostalgia.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 23 June 2011 - 12:27pm
Gay PEOPLE are deprived of

Gay PEOPLE are deprived of rights. Homosexuals are not aloud to donate blood. They are bullied and tormented, and many anti-hate crime laws do not cover gays. So yes, gay PEOPLE do not have equal rights.

Anonymous's picture
Posted by Anonymous (not verified) on 30 May 2012 - 4:49pm
Incorrect!

Gay PEOPLE are deprived of rights, they are not allowed to donate blood, they endure endless bullying, and some "Anti-Hate Crime" Laws do not cover homosexuals. So yes gay People do not have equal rights.

Anonymous's picture
Posted by Anonymous (not verified) on 30 May 2012 - 4:54pm
Actually, it is estimated

Actually, it is estimated that 75% of LGBTQ students have no state laws protecting them from peer harassment and bullying. 97% of teens report hearing homophobic remarks regularly. "that's so gay!!" is a phrase that should seriously die out... I know at my own middle school we had a lot of that.

Also, most anti-hate-crime laws do not protect gays. Around 20% of hate crimes are against the LGBTQ community, the majority violent. Perpetrators rarel serve justice.

Finally, the right to not be FOLLOWED WITH SIGNS (I've seen this) is totally not given to gay PEOPLE as well as couples. WBC needs to be locked up in a cave.

Max's picture
Posted by Max (not verified) on 22 June 2012 - 9:04pm
I would first like to point

I would first like to point out that when the original Constitution was written, It was intended to apply to white, male, landowners and white male landowners only. However, over time, we have evolved our notion of what it means to be free, and to be human. Thus, your argument fails in even the most abstract sense. Now, we become more literal.

The Equal Protection Clause found within § I of amendment XIV has been applied to couples in the past, most notably in Loving v. Virginia (388 U.S. 1) a Supreme Court decision wherein the court ruled that that state's statute prohibiting interracial couples from marrying was unconstitutional pursuant to amendment XIV. The argument that the two had the right to marry any other person of their choosing, so long as it be of the same race, was invalid due to the plain fact that they did not want to, nor could they conceive of marrying anyone else. The fact that the state's discrimination against their relationship constituted a de facto discrimination against the individuals, aggravated by the intangibility of the state's proclaimed reasons for passing the measure, rendered the statute entirely in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. If one substitutes the term 'interracial' for 'same sex' the parallels between the two becoming strikingly apparent.

It is the states' attack upon individuals' ability to share a life with the person they love, upon individuals' ability to raise a family with that same person, upon individuals' ability to pursue their own happiness that constitutes a tangible trespass upon their Equal Protection. In this sense, given the wholly abstract and purely idealogical motives behind prohibiting gay marriage, it is impossible to classify one relationship as being inferior to another without first classifying one human being as being inferior to another.

CJ's picture
Posted by CJ (not verified) on 12 April 2013 - 9:36pm