Prop 8 ruling: nothing 'wrong' with being gay

[HappyChristian]

Please explain to us what "legal matters" you think have been discussed. I merely quoted the 14th Amendment (no smoke in mirrors, just a simple word for word qoute) and explained the Court's interpretation thereof. I didn't tak an "approach" that is identified with any group. I merely stated things the way they are. Happy offered her opinion about they way things "should" be, which just so happens to line up with the way you think things should be (despite the fact that things are not that way, and never in fact have been with regards to the equal protection clause).

I have not read where Happy even suggested what we do with homosexuals. Please refer me to her post if I have overlooked it, or maybe she can tell us again.

You quoted it a few posts back...

Never have been? It's sad how lacking your eduction in history was.

[ptwild]

You quoted it a few posts back...

Never have been? It's sad how lacking your eduction in history was.

I went back and read your posts and you'll have to forgive me, but I cannot find where you said what we are to do with all these homosexuals. You don't have to retype it, just tell me what post #.

And as to my lacking education in history: Just show us the Supreme Court case you are relying on (I know you understand that it is the Federal Courts -not some private citizen's opinion- that determine how our constitutional amendments are applied). Show us the one that says it only applies to racism or that it was only intended to apply to racism. If you can show us that case I think you can change at least a part of the curriculum of every constitutional law class at every law school in the country.

[HappyChristian]

I went back and read your posts and you'll have to forgive me, but I cannot find where you said what we are to do with all these homosexuals. You don't have to retype it, just tell me what post #.

And as to my lacking education in history: Just show us the Supreme Court case you are relying on (I know you understand that it is the Federal Courts -not some private citizen's opinion- that determine how our constitutional amendments are applied). Show us the one that says it only applies to racism or that it was only intended to apply to racism. If you can show us that case I think you can change at least a part of the curriculum of every constitutional law class at every law school in the country.

If you know your history, then you know that the 14th amendment was enacted in response to the black codes that resulted after the war. The purpose of it - not some private citizen's opinion - was to protect black citizens from the racism that existed.

You might recall Strauder vs. WV, 1880. A black man had been accused of murder and was being tried by an all white jury because WV statute didn't allow blacks to serve on juries. And the court's decision was (please note: this was basically the FIRST decision, or at least the first landmark, by SCOTUS regarding the 14th) that its purpose was:

to assure to the colored race the enjoyment of all the civil rights that under the law are enjoyed by white persons, and to give to that race the protection of the general government, in that enjoyment, whenever it should be denied by the States.

Part of Justice Harlan's dissent in Plessy:

These two amendments [the 13th and 14th - HC], if enforced according to their true intent and meaning, will protect all the civil rights that pertain to freedom and citizenship. Finally, and to the end that no citizen should be denied, on account of his race, the privilege of participating in the political control of his country, it as declared by the Fifteenth Amendment that

the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude.
These notable additions to the fundamental law were welcomed by the friends of liberty throughout the world. They removed the race line from our governmental systems. They had, as this court has said, a common purpose, namely to secure

to a race recently emancipated, a race that through [163 U.S. 556] many generations have been held in slavery, all the civil rights that the superior race enjoy.
They declared, in legal effect, this court has further said,

that the law in the States shall be the same for the black as for the white; that all persons, whether colored or white, shall stand equal before the laws of the States, and, in regard to the colored race, for whose protection the amendment was primarily designed, that no discrimination shall be made against them by law because of their color.

In 1938, there was Missouri where a black man wasn't allowed to matriculate at an all-white university. 14th amendment to the rescue. Sweatt, Shelley, MacLauren, Brown...all about race...

RE what I said we should do with homosexuals: end of post #23:

What do we do to keep people from being homosexual? Christians need to get busy telling others about Christ. Not just homosexuals, but all lost. There have been large numbers of homosexuals saved and turned from that lifestyle.

[ptwild]

I must have not been clear. There is no doubt that the 14th Amendment affords equal protection to all races. You have contended that it was only meant to apply to recently freed blacks and I asked you to show us a case that says it was only meant to apply to issues revolving around race. You have provided us with cases that do in deed deal with the 14th Amend. being applied in connection with issues revolving around race. However, none of those cases say that the 14th Amend. was only intended to apply to race issues. In fact, one of the cases you cited, Strauders v. WV (I thougth you might chase after that one), says this: "Whether the amendment had other, and if so what, purposes not decided." The fact of the matter is that the Court has never stated that the 14th Amend only applies to race issues. And rightfully so, for if it did only apply to race, then we would still be allowed to deny equal protection based on gender, nationality, religion . . . (I know you, being so educated in our legal system and all, understand that just as many cases dealing with these issues can be cited as can be cases dealing with race) The persecutions of blacks no doubt brought about the 14th Amendment, but our Courts have consistently refused to limit its application to only race issues.

[HappyChristian]

I must have not been clear. There is no doubt that the 14th Amendment affords equal protection to all races. You have contended that it was only meant to apply to recently freed blacks and I asked you to show us a case that says it was only meant to apply to issues revolving around race. You have provided us with cases that do in deed deal with the 14th Amend. being applied in connection with issues revolving around race. However, none of those cases say that the 14th Amend. was only intended to apply to race issues. In fact, one of the cases you cited, Strauders v. WV (I thougth you might chase after that one), says this: "Whether the amendment had other, and if so what, purposes not decided." The fact of the matter is that the Court has never stated that the 14th Amend only applies to race issues. And rightfully so, for if it did only apply to race, then we would still be allowed to deny equal protection based on gender, nationality, religion . . . (I know you, being so educated in our legal system and all, understand that just as many cases dealing with these issues can be cited as can be cases dealing with race) The persecutions of blacks no doubt brought about the 14th Amendment, but our Courts have consistently refused to limit its application to only race issues.

And I knew you would say this. As to your snarky comment on my being so educated in our legal system and all...you have absolutely no idea what I've learned in my 50 years, so cut out the disparagement (and, yes, I know your comment was meant to be disparaging). Funny, but you asked for one that said only. Of course, Strauder didn't say only, but it sure defined its purpose. But that's not acceptable, is it. Yep, it has been applied to gender, nationality, religion...but it does not apply to sexual orientation. *shrugs* Homosexuals are not a "minority" (another buzzword that appears often in the 14th cases). And shouldn't be treated as so, because it is an insult to true minorities.

[ptwild]

And I knew you would say this. As to your snarky comment on my being so educated in our legal system and all...you have absolutely no idea what I've learned in my 50 years, so cut out the disparagement (and, yes, I know your comment was meant to be disparaging). Funny, but you asked for one that said only. Of course, Strauder didn't say only, but it sure defined its purpose. But that's not acceptable, is it. Yep, it has been applied to gender, nationality, religion...but it does not apply to sexual orientation. *shrugs* Homosexuals are not a "minority" (another buzzword that appears often in the 14th cases). And shouldn't be treated as so, because it is an insult to true minorities.

It defined one of its purposes. And no it's not good enough because it doesn't support your contention. You are correct that the 14th Amend is yet to be applied to homosexuals. However, Prop 8 was struck down not because it violated the equal protection rights of a gay person, but because it didn't afford equal protection to a person period. As I tried to explain earlier, the Court didn't apply equal protection to a gay couple in striking down Prop 8, it merely applied it to an individual person that was being denied the same priviledge (the right to marry whom he chooses) that you and I enjoy.

This is the part where you admit you were wrong and leave the lawyering to the lawyers.

[John81]

Please explain to us what "legal matters" you think have been discussed. I merely quoted the 14th Amendment (no smoke in mirrors, just a simple word for word qoute) and explained the Court's interpretation thereof. I didn't tak an "approach" that is identified with any group. I merely stated things the way they are. Happy offered her opinion about they way things "should" be, which just so happens to line up with the way you think things should be (despite the fact that things are not that way, and never in fact have been with regards to the equal protection clause).

I have not read where Happy even suggested what we do with homosexuals. Please refer me to her post if I have overlooked it, or maybe she can tell us again.

I quoted LuAnne's response right in the post you responded to, are you really reading the posts? Here it is again: "What do we do to keep people from being homosexual? Christians need to get busy telling others about Christ. Not just homosexuals, but all lost. There have been large numbers of homosexuals saved and turned from that lifestyle."

The entire legal haggling angle is itself a smokescreen if you are a Christian. Christians are to live by the Word of God, not by the words of men as written in the Constitution,it's amendments or the dictates of judges if they be contrary to the Word of God or used as such.

LuAnne has explained well the history and original intent of the 14th Amendment, which if you study it out, the 14th Amendment is invalid because it was unconstitutionally (illegally) adopted, and yet you reject what she has put forth. Not only that, you do this in a very unchristian manner. You have been doing this in several threads. Taking an unbiblical position, addressing ladies, and sometimes others, in unchristian ways, and rejecting facts and reality that doesn't align with your position. Whatever you choose to call yourself, those are liberal trademarks and unchristian.

Scripture is very clear with regards to homosexuality. Scripture is also very clear that we are to OBey, follow and abide in the Word of God. We either choose to follow and serve God or we choose to follow the world and serve the devil. Which path do you choose?

[amblivion]

It defined one of its purposes. And no it's not good enough because it doesn't support your contention. You are correct that the 14th Amend is yet to be applied to homosexuals. However, Prop 8 was struck down not because it violated the equal protection rights of a gay person, but because it didn't afford equal protection to a person period. As I tried to explain earlier, the Court didn't apply equal protection to a gay couple in striking down Prop 8, it merely applied it to an individual person that was being denied the same priviledge (the right to marry whom he chooses) that you and I enjoy.

This is the part where you admit you were wrong and leave the lawyering to the lawyers.

So what do you do with lawyers that disagree with you? You can't tell them they are ignorant of the law, and that you have superior knowledge because of your education (which you have indicated in many posts, past and present). Do you think it would be okay for a 50 year old to marry a 15 year old? I mean it is equal rights after all. It amazes me that you can throw out your Christian morals so easily, and defend taking this country one step closer to Sodom and Gomorrah.

[HappyChristian]

It defined one of its purposes. And no it's not good enough because it doesn't support your contention. You are correct that the 14th Amend is yet to be applied to homosexuals. However, Prop 8 was struck down not because it violated the equal protection rights of a gay person, but because it didn't afford equal protection to a person period. As I tried to explain earlier, the Court didn't apply equal protection to a gay couple in striking down Prop 8, it merely applied it to an individual person that was being denied the same priviledge (the right to marry whom he chooses) that you and I enjoy.

This is the part where you admit you were wrong and leave the lawyering to the lawyers.

No - it applied it to the referendum vote by the people - decided by a homosexual judge, regarding marriage - not individual protection. Marriage isn't just an individual. Have you read all of Harlan's dissent? He makes it quite clear that the 14th amendment regards governmental discrimination. This was not the state creating a law: it was a referendum by the people. States can have referendums. What this judge did was wrong.

Sorry, but not going to do it. Regardless of your elitist views that the "judicial class" (read Harlan...he made it clear there are no classes in America) should rule, we are still a government of the people. And, BTW - jurists can be taken down by Congress...the only court Congress doesn't control is the SCOTUS. Check it out. Congress can defund SCOTUS decisions, though. It's all part of the checks and balances system (hmmm, come to think of it, Harlan mentioned that, too - man, he said a mouthful in his dissent) that you would throw out. I will leave corporate lawyering to you, though.

[ptwild]

I quoted LuAnne's response right in the post you responded to, are you really reading the posts? Here it is again: "What do we do to keep people from being homosexual? Christians need to get busy telling others about Christ. Not just homosexuals, but all lost. There have been large numbers of homosexuals saved and turned from that lifestyle."

The entire legal haggling angle is itself a smokescreen if you are a Christian. Christians are to live by the Word of God, not by the words of men as written in the Constitution,it's amendments or the dictates of judges if they be contrary to the Word of God or used as such.

LuAnne has explained well the history and original intent of the 14th Amendment, which if you study it out, the 14th Amendment is invalid because it was unconstitutionally (illegally) adopted, and yet you reject what she has put forth. Not only that, you do this in a very unchristian manner. You have been doing this in several threads. Taking an unbiblical position, addressing ladies, and sometimes others, in unchristian ways, and rejecting facts and reality that doesn't align with your position. Whatever you choose to call yourself, those are liberal trademarks and unchristian.

Scripture is very clear with regards to homosexuality. Scripture is also very clear that we are to OBey, follow and abide in the Word of God. We either choose to follow and serve God or we choose to follow the world and serve the devil. Which path do you choose?

I didn't know that particular quote was what you were talking about. We have been discussing denying homosexual's certain civil rights and you said we must "stand firm against thier sin" (post #19). That was the context in which I asked what we were to do with them. If I would have know that "stand firm" merely meant share the gospel with them and tell them they are wwrong, I wouldn't have asked the question. I was under the impression that by "standing firm against their sin" you meant something more than telling them that we think they are wrong. I thought you may have been suggesting that we outlaw homosexuality or that we take other rights away from them.

I'm sure someone has told you that the 14th Amend. was illegally adopted and that we therefore are not entitled to due process or equal protection from the states. However, I doubt that can offer you anything (such as case law - which decides whether or not something is illegal) other than some fanciful argument with "facts" which you have not, and have no way of, varifying.

I will tell every homosexual that ask that I believe their lifestyle is sinful, immoral, and simply unnatural. I will not treat them differently nor will I take part in denying them the same liberties that our laws guarantee.

Furthermore, stating what the law is and how it is applied has nothing to do with supporting the privileges the law protect. It's kind of like how you might not agree with what everyone says, but you support their freedom of speech. I don't know how to make it any more clear.

[John81]

I didn't know that particular quote was what you were talking about. We have been discussing denying homosexual's certain civil rights and you said we must "stand firm against thier sin" (post #19). That was the context in which I asked what we were to do with them. If I would have know that "stand firm" merely meant share the gospel with them and tell them they are wwrong, I wouldn't have asked the question. I was under the impression that by "standing firm against their sin" you meant something more than telling them that we think they are wrong. I thought you may have been suggesting that we outlaw homosexuality or that we take other rights away from them.

I'm sure someone has told you that the 14th Amend. was illegally adopted and that we therefore are not entitled to due process or equal protection from the states. However, I doubt that can offer you anything (such as case law - which decides whether or not something is illegal) other than some fanciful argument with "facts" which you have not, and have no way of, varifying.

I will tell every homosexual that ask that I believe their lifestyle is sinful, immoral, and simply unnatural. I will not treat them differently nor will I take part in denying them the same liberties that our laws guarantee.

Furthermore, stating what the law is and how it is applied has nothing to do with supporting the privileges the law protect. It's kind of like how you might not agree with what everyone says, but you support their freedom of speech. I don't know how to make it any more clear.

True Christians don't "think" homosexuality is wrong, they know it is a sin.

There are no Constitutional rights for any sexual deviant to be afforded marriage rights or benefits.

Standing firm against homosexuality requires that we not support anything that gives any form of legitimacy to this sin.

Homosexuality isn't some "special sin", it's a sin that like all other sins Christians are to call sin, present the Gospel to the sinners, and to prevent sin from being viewed as acceptable, supported by law, or allowed in the public square.

As originally founded, and as the laws were written, applied and deemed lawful and Constitutional for over 150 years, various sins were indeed outlawed, including homosexuality, adultery, murder, rape, theft, lying under oath, etc.

In any event, there is no biblical excuse for a Christian to support any "rights" for homosexuals regardless of the country they live in or what system of government they live under.

Scripture is very clear that when the ungodly rule, homosexuality is accepted and the nation is punished. Scripture is equally clear that when godly rulers are in power homosexuality is not accepted and the nation is blessed.

So, what about you, are you going to stand with God or the world and the devil on this issue?

[ptwild]

No - it applied it to the referendum vote by the people - decided by a homosexual judge, regarding marriage - not individual protection. Marriage isn't just an individual. Have you read all of Harlan's dissent? He makes it quite clear that the 14th amendment regards governmental discrimination. This was not the state creating a law: it was a referendum by the people. States can have referendums. What this judge did was wrong.

Sorry, but not going to do it. Regardless of your elitist views that the "judicial class" (read Harlan...he made it clear there are no classes in America) should rule, we are still a government of the people. And, BTW - jurists can be taken down by Congress...the only court Congress doesn't control is the SCOTUS. Check it out. Congress can defund SCOTUS decisions, though. It's all part of the checks and balances system (hmmm, come to think of it, Harlan mentioned that, too - man, he said a mouthful in his dissent) that you would throw out. I will leave corporate lawyering to you, though.

Wow. I mean, really? Really? Either you have a fundamental understanding of the way this thingsworks, or you are just saying stuff that you think will some how contradict what I have stated. I don't even know if I should take the time to explain that that little thing you call a "referendum" became what we call a "law" once it passed. Nor do I know if you can understand that per Section 1983 of the U.S. Code, no person (or peoples) can deprive any other person of their constitutional rights under the color of law. Or that a dissent, is just that, a dissent, carrying no weight whatsoever and having no application to the interpretation of law. And I (me, a single person, with no one else involved) have a right to get married. You had a right to get married before you ever met your husband or even started considering a mate. It is an individual right. Just because you need at least two people to take advantage of it, doesn't make it less of an individual right. A good analogy that my Con. Law professor used was that freedome of speech is an individual right even though it takes another person hearing what you say for it actually be speech.

[John81]

Wow. I mean, really? Really? Either you have a fundamental understanding of the way this thingsworks, or you are just saying stuff that you think will some how contradict what I have stated. I don't even know if I should take the time to explain that that little thing you call a "referendum" became what we call a "law" once it passed. Nor do I know if you can understand that per Section 1983 of the U.S. Code, no person (or peoples) can deprive any other person of their constitutional rights under the color of law. Or that a dissent, is just that, a dissent, carrying no weight whatsoever and having no application to the interpretation of law. And I (me, a single person, with no one else involved) have a right to get married. You had a right to get married before you ever met your husband or even started considering a mate. It is an individual right. Just because you need at least two people to take advantage of it, doesn't make it less of an individual right. A good analogy that my Con. Law professor used was that freedome of speech is an individual right even though it takes another person hearing what you say for it actually be speech.

Are you a biblical Christian? Why do you keep ignorning the Scriptural aspect which is to be the guide for all matters in a Christians life?

Legally speaking, no one has a "right" to marry. A government can at any time grant or restrict the legal ability to marry. Men and women have a biblical right to marry, but that has nothing to do with the legal system.

Again, nothing regarding the legal system takes precedence over the Word of God.

Since you continue to ignore the Word of God and questions regarding living by such and you continue to support that which God says is an abomination, it seems you have made your choice to stand with the world and the devil and reject God and His Word.

[ptwild]

True Christians don't "think" homosexuality is wrong, they know it is a sin.

There are no Constitutional rights for any sexual deviant to be afforded marriage rights or benefits.

Standing firm against homosexuality requires that we not support anything that gives any form of legitimacy to this sin.

Homosexuality isn't some "special sin", it's a sin that like all other sins Christians are to call sin, present the Gospel to the sinners, and to prevent sin from being viewed as acceptable, supported by law, or allowed in the public square.

As originally founded, and as the laws were written, applied and deemed lawful and Constitutional for over 150 years, various sins were indeed outlawed, including homosexuality, adultery, murder, rape, theft, lying under oath, etc.

In any event, there is no biblical excuse for a Christian to support any "rights" for homosexuals regardless of the country they live in or what system of government they live under.

Scripture is very clear that when the ungodly rule, homosexuality is accepted and the nation is punished. Scripture is equally clear that when godly rulers are in power homosexuality is not accepted and the nation is blessed.

So, what about you, are you going to stand with God or the world and the devil on this issue?

I have already said that stand with God in regards to his position with homosexuality. But I disagree that such support entails treating them differently than others. We are to treat others as we wish to be treated and I don't believe I can do that and take your position. I don't believe that homosexuals can ever be married as defined by the Church. They may be able to have a civil marriage - a contract recognized by the state, but that will never have what I consider a Christian marriage - a joining together of two people by God.

And I don't believe homosexuality has ever been illegal. Sodomy may have been illegal, but that is a sexual act, not a sexual orientation, that applied to heterosexuals as much as it did homosexuals. Your above post suggest we shouldn't allow homosexuals in the public square - are you suggesting we criminalize it?

What about the states in which gay marriage is still illegal (it is still illegal in my state)? How are their citizens supporting homosexuality?

[HappyChristian]

Wow. I mean, really? Really? Either you have a fundamental understanding of the way this thingsworks, or you are just saying stuff that you think will some how contradict what I have stated. I don't even know if I should take the time to explain that that little thing you call a "referendum" became what we call a "law" once it passed. Nor do I know if you can understand that per Section 1983 of the U.S. Code, no person (or peoples) can deprive any other person of their constitutional rights under the color of law. Or that a dissent, is just that, a dissent, carrying no weight whatsoever and having no application to the interpretation of law. And I (me, a single person, with no one else involved) have a right to get married. You had a right to get married before you ever met your husband or even started considering a mate. It is an individual right. Just because you need at least two people to take advantage of it, doesn't make it less of an individual right. A good analogy that my Con. Law professor used was that freedome of speech is an individual right even though it takes another person hearing what you say for it actually be speech.

No, I don't know what a referendum is, nor that it becomes law if passed (it's still the PEOPLE who decide: it is societal, not governmental). Nor do I know that a dissent carries no weight, no matter how interesting it might be. I'm just one of the uneducated masses, duh. Excuse me as I go my way into the blindness of my ignorance...