So the Constitution says nothing about classes or groups of people then. You have to have a construct reading of the Constitution to establish group rights.
Would this guy have his job today, if he had tweeted about a different race?
- Thread starter WVPATX
- Start date
I think it's pretty clear in that American Thinker piece that the 1st amendment protects very large classes of people...it doesn't separate out by things like race, or Religious groups...but those classes are still protected.
Prayer for instance as a Constitutionally protected Freedom to Worship is protected. Homosexuality, not being a condition of birth or found to be of a natural state like being Human is not protected. Being human if you choose homosexuality or not is protected.
You're reading more into what I'm saying.
You have to start with a construct to move from individual to class. There otherwise is no justification for assigning groups right on the basis of the Constitution.
Here's the link where I found his information. Interesting reading:
http://www.constitution.org/cb/beccaria_bio.htm
Prayer is not mentioned as a right in the Constitution. Prayer is not a condition of birth. Therefore prayer is not protected...if you wish to be even the tiniest bit consistent.
As the Constitution seeks to protect all people, there is no other way to define them. Yes individuals first, but as a class or group to include everyone and not exclude anyone.
Prayer is an expression of Religious Worship which is part of Religion the freedom of which to practice is protected in the Constitution.
Yes there is another way to define people...as individuals and only as individuals.
Correct, but since the Constitution excludes no one, anyone belonging to any group of humans by race or gender, is also included as that American Thinker piece pointed out.
Here you are saying prayer is part of religious practice. Religious practices are protected because the Constitution affords freedom of religion.
Therefore, private homosexual activity is protected because it is part of being a homosexual which is protected by the IX Amendment.
So the AT piece is pointless in that regard then, because the group is the human race.
There are no Constitutional restrictions against homosexual acts, but they are not protected as a right like Prayer is. Prayer is part of Religious Worship, and Freedom to worship under a Religious belief is protected under the Constitution.
A Man who chooses not to engage in homosexual acts already has Constitutional protections as a human. However, if he then chooses to engage in homosexual activity, while being free to do so, that activity does not then elevate him into the same protected class as being Human or a Man.
Pull quote from American Thinker article I linked to explaining this important difference:
“Freedom” in the First Amendment is linked to ontology, not to identity. It is an ontological exercise of freedom not freedom conceived of as mere choice or preference. A religious person lives in God and for God. He or she is not merely “oriented” towards God.
Lastly sexual orientation originally came into affirmative action under the protected class of “sex.” But an interesting shift had taken place. Discrimination based on sex meant discrimination against women, a biologically defined category. Age is based upon biology. Race is based upon biology. But discrimination based on sex as it applied to homosexuals was based upon defending the right to certain behaviors or desires. The law bars discrimination based on sexual orientation. However, “oriented” is a weasel word. It is evasive insofar as it points neither to biology nor to ontology. It is protecting an undefined collection of actions and urges".
So, as a human being he may certainly choose to perform homosexual acts, but they are not protected as a right. Only his right to choose them, not "being a homosexual" as a result of doing them. He's not a homosexual until or unless he performs the act...but he's always a Man so he never loses his Constitutional protections as a Man. However he has no protected "right" to be considered as a homosexual because he can't be one until or unless he actually does what makes him homosexual and that chosen activity is not a guaranteed right, only a preferred behavioral choice.
Last edited:
Only as a matter of saying no one is excluded under the Constitution even if they are a member of a race--which logically at some point we all are...one race or another under the umbrella of "human" race.
Last edited:
You've repeated the same thing over and over. What you haven't done is shown where prayer is directly protected. It's not. It's assumed protected not merely because of the first amendment but because it is a private activity...just like homosexuality is a private activity.
As soon as you allow the state to decide what private, adult, consensual activity which infringes on no one else's rights is deviant you allow them to declare, for instance, spanking children deviant.
This also emboldens further overreach by government. No right is absolute. We would not allow blood-letting on children, which is a part of some religions. The right of non consenting children cannot be abridge by a parent's freedom of religion. If Sodomy laws, which SCOTUS already ruled against, were maintained on the basis of deviancy then on the basis of deviancy a state could say its psychologically abusive to children to be taught Hell is real and any who doesn't believe in Jesus is going there.
You cannot construct a legal argument against a private activity you don't like without the potential of that very argument being used to abridge a freedom you do like.
So if the group is the human race there are no special classes of people with regards to the Constitution.
Personally, I don't see how any government (federal or state) can prevent anyone from marrying. There is a separation of religion in government and laws....or so it is supposed to be......and there is no law that bans gay marriages that does so in anything other than religion. So I guess my stance is that every state that denies marriage licenses is denying certain people their rights.
What gives the government the right to regulate marriage or require licensure for marriage of any type except in the protection of minors?
I don't see how any local,state or federal governments can ban any type of marriage........however I think religions can ban them if they want. If religions ban them, the participants can get married outside of the religious institution.
They can still Marry (they do) but yes you are correct some States don't recognize those Marriages (doesn't invalidate them though) and Yes you are also correct certain Religious beliefs do not call a union of two Men or two women "Marriage" which they are also free to do.
But they (Gay people) can and do still Marry and the Government, Federal, and some States do recognize it. Society as a whole for the most part still thinks Marriage is between Man and a Woman, but many folks disagree with that yet it doesn't stop same Sex couples from getting Married...even in some Churches.
The classic definition of Marriage however has not been changed to mean anything other than a Union between one Man and One woman. The Defense of Marriage act affirmed this but it's currently being challenged in several States. It's one thing the next Supreme Court may very well consider--deciding once and for all what Marriage is. We may even get a Constitutional Amendment stating what it is and what it is not.
Exactly. If a church says "no" to holding a ceremony, then that's fine. I don't see or have a problem with that. Hell, when my wife and I were selecting our preacher to do the ceremony we had to go through counseling with him and he said he would "decide" if he would accept our invitation to be the pastor...which he did.
But for the government to say "no", I think that is shredding the separation of religion and government.
Marriage is not only Religious. In cases where no Religious ceremony is involved, many States recognize Civil unions...even Marriages. The definition of Marriage however is up for debate both in the Government and in Religion. However neither totally ban it.
I don't care....I do think it needs to be defined...because you have some folks who want to Marry their Dogs. But as long as we call traditional Marriage something we already know it is, and define for same sex couples who want to Marry what that is...I'm O-K with those arrangements being called "Civil Unions" for instance..... as long as they are afforded the same rights as Traditional Marriage, I don't think there's anything more we need Government to do about it.
I'm not for redefining the moral equivalency of same sex couples who Marry with Traditional Marriage. They can't have that status...and Religious people have strongly held beliefs why it's not the same thing and I'm willing to allow them to protect that moral high ground.
If you do that "get Government out of Marriage" who would settle Divorce cases? Paternity lawsuits? custody battles? Probate cases?
Churches don't grant Divorces, Government does. How would you settle breakups if Government has no role in it?
I don't think that anything would change by eliminating the government deciding who can or cannot get married.
Well in that case, there is no legal binding authority because the union is not recognized...certainly not by any Church or Religion and not by the Government. To the extent Children or common property is involved, you do have Government (claims Courts) in some cases settling disputes, with kids the Government is involved in determining who gets legal custody, like DFACS or some other agency.
So they're in it either way.
Last edited:
Who would recognize those arrangements as legal agreements if not the Government?
Because even if you get Married in a Church, you still need a license from the Government to demonstrate that union is recognized in a court of Law. If same sex couples break up and claim shared property, in order to settle disputes that legal union expresses rightful claims on any shared property, and that's what the Government would use ostensibly to determine who gets what in that case.
I edited and added to my answer while you were writing this...I addressed how custody cases would need to be handled by some Government agency like a Department of Family services or something like that.
Now you're redefining Marriage. In that case anyone could say they're Married, and claim property once the couple breaks up. That's crazy.
Right...but where is that done? In a court which is by extension...Government. You said "why not get Government out of Marriage". They're already in it. Non Married couples who split up amicably don't need a court to divide up their stuff. But when there's a dispute...how would that be adjudicated?
If you're arguing no ones needs either Government or a Church to call themselves "Married", now you're redefining what that means and there you will get an argument from folks Religious or non.
As I said, I don't have a problem with calling same Sex couples who Marry "Civil Unions" but if you remove the Government from any recognition of that arrangement legal or otherwise...you're opening up a can of worms that may ultimately redefine what any union is. A man and 2 Women, 3 Women and 2 Men...10 Men and 20 Women....where would you draw the line?
I'm not ready to put society through that just so folks can live any way they want and be called a "union"
Let's define first what Marriage is (as we've always known it) then if same sex couples also want that legal status...let's define what their arrangement is...so there's no confusion for anyone, or the Government.
Then leave it at that.
