There's no such thing as a pretty good aligator wrestler.
I agree with Zap and I believe that he is a lawyer.
It doesn't, depending on the rights. To be unconstitutional, the rights taken away have to be provided for by the Constitution. Homosexuals, whether you like it or not, are not protected under the federal Constitution, nor under most state constitutions.Maybe someone with a law background can confirm this, but I'm pretty sure you don't have to be a protected class for it to be unconstitutional to take your rights away. If a state voted in a law that banned people under 5'2'' from being teachers I'd imagine it would be deemed unconstitutional in court even though people under 5'2'' are not a protected class.
Jacob Schlottke---Gone too soon, and the world is a little less bright because of it. RIP, brother.
One, two, Evans is coming for you...
Zapp's legal argument is completely right. If homosexuals are so concerned about their right as a group, with that group being classified by sexual preference then they should band together & seek a constitutional amendment.
By the same token that amendment would have to protect the sexual preference rights of heterosexuals as well.
The rest of the debate is just moral, not legal.
Gays seek marriage as a way of legitimizing their lifestyle. I find 2 things very funny & interesting:
1) I beleive that by informal poll that only about 1 to 2 % of the US population calls itself gay. I find it interesting that such a smaller minority sucks up a disportionate amount of attention in the media.
2) The main thing a marriage gives you is the LEGAL right to call your spouses stuff YOUR STUFF. Husbands & Wives are afforded specific rights that boyfriends & girlfriends are NOT. It also gives you the OPTION of a joint tax filing which can save you money.
If gays were really interested in those 2 advantages that marriage brings you then I would make a suggestion that I have already explored & executed:
As a couple create a S corporation & then put all purchases thorough that corporation. You can issue shares 50/50. It is A LOT easier to create & liquidate then a marriage!!!!
Also nothing is stopping gays from having a WEDDING. They just don't get the license but a S corp would give them a certain amount of legal binding & protection.
Most gay people of the male sex still self-identify as males.
The most disturbing thing about this thread, is the AD.
It is not about tax savings or pushing a lifestyle, it is about not wanting to be discriminated against by the state.
As far as Maine rejecting this I am disappointed. Speaking as an elitist liberal New Englander, I truly thought that this area of the country is more progressive than elsewhere. I also feel that Maine's no votes contain a higher percentage of people who just don't like homosexuals and voted against giving them rights, as opposed to elsewhere in the country where fundamentalist religion plays a stronger role in politics.
Maybe voters in Maine realize that GAYS ALREADY HAVE RIGHTS! ODH, I am not trying to pick on you or anyone else, so I am not trying to force my opinions on anyone. The voters have already spoken. I do have an honest question, though. What do gays have to gain by getting married other than tax breaks? If they get legally married, what would that prove to them or anyone else? They aren't being stopped from anything now. They just like to tell everyone they see about their sexual preference when nobody cares. I think that maybe people are voting against them because they are sick and tired of hearing about their sexual preferences. Sex is for the bedroom not parades.