Ron Paul Negatives

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Am I misunderstanding the 14th amendment? Equal rights for all citizens? It's the amendment that gave blacks the same rights as whites? How does this same amendment not give gays the same rights? EQUAL rights, "won't deprive any person of life, liberty or property" nor "abridge the privledges"

[/ QUOTE ]

gay people already have equal protection under the law as straight people (in regards to marriage, at least). Gay men can marry women, just like straight men. And straight men are prohibited from marrying men, just like gay men are.

The equal protection violation is one of *gender*, not of *sexual orientation*. Men are restricted from entering contracts that women are permitted to enter. That's the equal protection violation. Alice can marry Bob, but Charlie cannot marry Bob. Charlie is therefore not equal to Alice under the law.

The solution is quite simple; the state should not be involved in what are basically private contracts between consenting adults.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why can't we just as easily say the protection is "Enter contracts with the opposite sex?" Then all are equally protected, correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, because "opposite sex" isn't equal for all parties. Would "enter contracts with the same race" fly?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Am I misunderstanding the 14th amendment? Equal rights for all citizens? It's the amendment that gave blacks the same rights as whites? How does this same amendment not give gays the same rights? EQUAL rights, "won't deprive any person of life, liberty or property" nor "abridge the privledges"

[/ QUOTE ]

gay people already have equal protection under the law as straight people (in regards to marriage, at least). Gay men can marry women, just like straight men. And straight men are prohibited from marrying men, just like gay men are.

The equal protection violation is one of *gender*, not of *sexual orientation*. Men are restricted from entering contracts that women are permitted to enter. That's the equal protection violation. Alice can marry Bob, but Charlie cannot marry Bob. Charlie is therefore not equal to Alice under the law.

The solution is quite simple; the state should not be involved in what are basically private contracts between consenting adults.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why can't we just as easily say the protection is "Enter contracts with the opposite sex?" Then all are equally protected, correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, because "opposite sex" isn't equal for all parties. Would "enter contracts with the same race" fly?

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't get me wrong, I'm trying to find good arguments for allowing homosexuals to marry just as easily (or as difficult) as heterosexuals I'm just not sure this holds water. All parties are allowed to marry, and marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman (not how I'd define it, but that is the argument). Everyone still has access to the same thing: marriage. Race no longer enters into the definition of marriage, so its irrelevant.

[Taso]

I'm really not getting the argument.

Going by that statement ^ we could say, "Blacks can't marry eachother - they still have equal rights though because blacks can marry whites...Everyone can marry, its equal."

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't get me wrong, I'm trying to find good arguments for allowing homosexuals to marry just as easily (or as difficult) as heterosexuals I'm just not sure this holds water. All parties are allowed to marry, and marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman (not how I'd define it, but that is the argument). Everyone still has access to the same thing: marriage. Race no longer enters into the definition of marriage, so its irrelevant.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if we define buying a hotdog as a transaction between two people of the same race, there's no equal protection violation, since everyone can buy a hotdog, right?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm really not getting the argument.

Going by that statement ^ we could say, "Blacks can't marry eachother - they still have equal rights though because blacks can marry whites...Everyone can marry, its equal."

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, if the definition of marriage was "Marry white people of the opposite sex." But it isn't.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Don't get me wrong, I'm trying to find good arguments for allowing homosexuals to marry just as easily (or as difficult) as heterosexuals I'm just not sure this holds water. All parties are allowed to marry, and marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman (not how I'd define it, but that is the argument). Everyone still has access to the same thing: marriage. Race no longer enters into the definition of marriage, so its irrelevant.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if we define buying a hotdog as a transaction between two people of the same race, there's no equal protection violation, since everyone can buy a hotdog, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess that is what I'm saying, yes. You could certainly take issue with that defintion, and thats where a lot of the debate is: trying to redefine what marriage means. The problem is, you have a definition in mind (a sensible one that I happen to agree with) that says "Marriage is a contract entered into with another person" and then arguing that the equal protection clause means that we must interpret this as anyone can enter into it with any other person, and the current laws are unconstitutional. But the anti-gay marriage people have a definition of marriage something more like "Marriage is a contract entered into with a member of the opposite sex." This now EQUALLY applies to everyone. Every single person (actually, I don't know what transgendered individuals would do, here, which is perhaps an interesting tangent) is able to make full use of this marriage thing.

How do you argue that the equal protection clause demands gay marriage be legal without first rejecting their definition and putting in your own? If we can just switch definitions of marriage, then we don't really have much of a debate to begin with.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
How do you argue that the equal protection clause demands gay marriage be legal without first rejecting their definition and putting in your own? If we can just switch definitions of marriage, then we don't really have much of a debate to begin with.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point is that *definition* violates the equal protection clause. You're putting the cart before the horse - in the framework of US law, the definition of marriage isn't an axiom, but the constitution *is*.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How do you argue that the equal protection clause demands gay marriage be legal without first rejecting their definition and putting in your own? If we can just switch definitions of marriage, then we don't really have much of a debate to begin with.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point is that *definition* violates the equal protection clause. You're putting the cart before the horse - in the framework of US law, the definition of marriage isn't an axiom, but the constitution *is*.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok. Why isn't this a slam dunk case for any of the gay rights groups?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How do you argue that the equal protection clause demands gay marriage be legal without first rejecting their definition and putting in your own? If we can just switch definitions of marriage, then we don't really have much of a debate to begin with.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point is that *definition* violates the equal protection clause. You're putting the cart before the horse - in the framework of US law, the definition of marriage isn't an axiom, but the constitution *is*.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok. Why isn't this a slam dunk case for any of the gay rights groups?

[/ QUOTE ]

Quite simple: because people are [censored] and don't give a [censored] about other people's rights; they'd much rather use force to impose their own preferences upon others.