View Single Post
  #377 (permalink)  
Old 11-11-2011, 08:39 PM
foundit66's Avatar
foundit66 foundit66 is offline
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,620
Thanks: 10,112
Thanked 15,311 Times in 9,282 Posts
Post Re: The Dumbest Argument Against Gay Marriage...

Originally Posted by talloulou View Post
That's ridiculous. Athough not completely dissimilar to asserting homosexuals don't need same sex* marriage because same sex unions are pretty much the same thing.
Such an allegation is like saying “separate but equal” schools establish that segregation does not need to end.
And that is on top of the fact that the vast majority of states do not have “same sex union” recognition.
Some state DOMAs even BAR recognition of same sex unions or similar benefits.
Originally Posted by talloulou
The constitution of the United States of America does not at this time prohibit treating the sexes differently. But it does currently offer women something fairly close.
Isn’t that actually what I just said?
It does not prohibit (as in completely) treating the genders differently.
But it does offer women something fairly close.
Originally Posted by talloulou View Post
WASHINGTON -- The equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not protect against discrimination on the basis of gender or sexual orientation, according to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.
Scalia: Women Don't Have Constitutional Protection Against Discrimination
Did you realize you were quoting from Huffington Post?
Did you read the REST of the article, which includes sections DIRECTLY REFUTING Scalia’s claims?
"In 1971, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that they were protected, in an opinion by the conservative then Chief Justice Warren Burger," Adam Cohen wrote in Time in September. "It is no small thing to talk about writing women out of equal protection -- or Jews, or Latinos or other groups who would lose their protection by the same logic. It is nice to think that legislatures would protect these minorities from oppression by the majority, but we have a very different country when the Constitution guarantees that it is so."
In 1996, Scalia cast the sole vote in favor of allowing the Virginia Military Institute to continue denying women admission.
Legal scholar Jack Balkin writes that while the 14th amendment doesn't end up explicitly mentioning sex, that doesn't mean it doesn't grant women equal protection:
First, The central purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to guarantee equal citizenship and equality before the law for all citizens and for all persons. It does not simply ban discrimination based on race. The fact that the word race is not mentioned in the text (as it is in the fifteenth amendment) was quite deliberate.
Scalia argues that the fourteenth amendment was not intended to prevent sex discrimination. That's not entirely true. The supporters of the fourteenth amendment did not think it would disturb the common law rules of coverture: under these rules women lost most of their common law rights upon marriage under the fiction that their legal identities were merged with their husbands. But these rules did not apply to single women. So in fact, the fourteenth amendment was intended to prohibit some forms of sex discrimination-- discrimination in basic civil rights against single women.

Moreover, the Constitution was subsequently amended. After the nineteenth amendment, the common law coverture rules made little sense. If married women had the right to vote, why did they not have the right to contract or own property in their own names? If we read the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of civil equality in light of the Nineteenth Amendment, the guarantee of sex equality should apply to both single and married women. The conservative court during the Lochner era thought as much in a case called Adkins v. Children's Hospital, decided immediately after the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment.
There are PLENTY of examples of the 14th amendment being applied to gender equality.
There is even an observed level of Equal Protection scrutiny (Intermediate scrutiny) applied to gender issues.
Equal Protection Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to foundit66 For This Useful Post: