Charles L. Cotton wrote:RoyGBiv wrote:Charles L. Cotton wrote:RoyGBiv wrote:mojo84 wrote:Those aren't the bills I'm talking about. I'm talking about HB 4105. It is not a gun related bill. There is only 57 minutes left for this bill to be heard. The dems are doing all they can to stall and run the clock.
I suppose this is unrelated to guns and way off topic.. but... Last time I read the 14th Amendment, Section 1 still said......
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Equal protection under the Constitution does not mean that every person in the U.S. can do anything and everything that every another person can do, regardless of the circumstances. It doesn't mean that men can walk into the women's restrooms if they wish, or that thirteen year old kids must be granted a driver's license, or that a taxi cab license must be issued to a convicted felon (even if their civil rights have been restored), or that a person convicted of misdemeanor sex crimes must be allowed to be a public school teacher. I could go on indefinitely. If the "equal protection" clause were so broad as to prohibit any distinctions, restrictions, or classifications, then it would be unworkable.
People who oppose HB4105 on subject matter grounds should be very careful trying to apply the equal protection clause. Doing so will open Pandora's Box.
Chas.
The State is not in the business of issuing licenses for rest room access and felons (especially sex criminals) are rightly denied access to various privileges and even rights, based on their past actions against society. All of that is a straw argument.
Ever try to comfort a gay friend with a life partner that's dieing? People who spent 15 years together building a life, only to be told in his partners end days that the parents that disowned him were the only one's allowed to make end of life care decisions for him.
Gay people are not criminals. That's the parallel being drawn and it's wrong.
Like the majority of people pushing your agenda are claiming I said or implied something I did not. You are trying to extend the equal protection clause to people, activities and status to which it simply does not apply.
No license is required to use a restroom, but laws prohibiting men from going into a woman's restroom or women going into the men's restroom are valid and enforceable. While you imply that I said homosexuality is a crime, I did no such thing nor did my examples imply a crime. You conspicuously ignore my 13 year old driver's license example. Both that example and the cab driver example have nothing to do with crimes, the prove the absurdity of your equal protection argument. If it were are broad as you argue, then no one could be denied a driver's license, a cab driver's permit, or the ability to enter any restroom one pleases.
I have friends who are homosexuals and friends who are lesbians. They are nice people and I enjoy their company. Our friendship does not depend upon my approval of their lifestyle nor my abandoning my values and Christian beliefs. If they were to ever require the latter, then we would no longer be friends, as would be the case if I demanded they change their lifestyle. Your failed attempt at a tear-jerking example could easily be addressed by contract, medical directive and power(s) of attorney. It is not necessary to change the definition of "marriage" as it has existed throughout recorded history; nor does it bring this fact pattern within the scope of the equal protection clause. As I said, be careful what you argue unless you are willing to remove all limits to application of the equal protection clause.
Chas.
I appreciate the considered arguments.
Re: Taxi license... you specifically mentioned felons, so, I thought my response was on point.
Re: 13 yo and DL's... Honestly I skipped it... Nothing more sinister in my lack of an on-point reply, but, my argument would be similar. The age and ability of a 13 yo operator is determined to be insufficient for the safety of others sharing the roads. I don't see how that argument makes the case against gay marriage any stronger.
If the only arguments that can be made against civil unions for homosexuals is 1. It's a slippery slope or 2. Religious, I don't see how those hold up against the 14th. I'm certainly no legal scholar so, I'll defer.
I always thought it a huge mistake tactically for the LGBT community to conflate "marriage" and "civil union". In my mind one is religious and the other secular. I'd wager we'd be further along on the civil side if different language was employed.
I know you deal with a lot of melodrama trying to keep all of us cats herded in the same direction and I certainly don't want to add to that so I'll make this my last comment on this off topic subject.
Thanks.
