To the Swedish Chef...

You are quoting Paul Cameron, the head of the FRI.
Hardly a reliable source...

On December 2, 1983, the American Psychological Association sent Paul Cameron a letter informing him that he had been dropped from membership. Early in 1984, all members of the American Psychological Association received official written notice that "Paul Cameron (Nebraska) was dropped from membership for a violation of the Preamble to the Ethical Principles of Psychologists" by the APA Board of Directors.5 Cameron has posted an elaborate argument about his expulsion from APA on his website, claiming that he resigned from APA before he was dropped from membership. Like most organizations, however, APA does not allow a member to resign when they are being investigated. And even if Cameron's claims were accepted as true, it would be remarkable that the largest professional organization of psychologists in the United States (and other professional associations, as noted below) went to such lengths to disassociate itself from one individual.

At its membership meeting on October 19, 1984, the Nebraska Psychological Association adopted a resolution stating that it "formally disassociates itself from the representations and interpretations of scientific literature offered by Dr. Paul Cameron in his writings and public statements on sexuality."6

In 1985, the American Sociological Association (ASA) adopted a resolution which asserted that "Dr. Paul Cameron has consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented sociological research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism" and noted that "Dr. Paul Cameron has repeatedly campaigned for the abrogation of the civil rights of lesbians and gay men, substantiating his call on the basis of his distorted interpretation of this research."7 The resolution formally charged an ASA committee with the task of "critically evaluating and publicly responding to the work of Dr. Paul Cameron."
At its August, 1986 meeting, the ASA officially accepted the committee's report and passed the following resolution:

The American Sociological Association officially and publicly states that Paul Cameron is not a sociologist, and condemns his consistent misrepresentation of sociological research. Information on this action and a copy of the report by the Committee on the Status of Homosexuals in Sociology, "The Paul Cameron Case," is to be published in Footnotes, and be sent to the officers of all regional and state sociological associations and to the Canadian Sociological Association with a request that they alert their members to Cameron's frequent lecture and media appearances."8

In August, 1996, the Canadian Psychological Association adopted the following policy statement:

The Canadian Psychological Association takes the position that Dr. Paul Cameron has consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism and thus, it formally disassociates itself from the representation and interpretations of scientific literature in his writings and public statements on sexuality.

Cameron's credibility was also questioned outside of academia. In his written opinion in Baker v. Wade (1985), Judge Buchmeyer of the U.S. District Court of Dallas referred to "Cameron's sworn statement that 'homosexuals abuse children at a proportionately greater incident than do heterosexuals,'" and concluded that "Dr. Paul Cameron...has himself made misrepresentations to this Court" and that "There has been no fraud or misrepresentations except by Dr. Cameron" (p.536).9

Paul Cameron Bio and Fact Sheet

Once again you have not right to vote, as the courts have repeatedly ruled, which is why some want a constitutional amendment. You only have an equal protection claim, if the government decides to have an election you have the right to vote in that election and to not be discriminated against.

"Specifically, McPherson said that state legislatures have virtually unlimited power to designate the manner of selecting Presidential electors. The Court stated, "[t]he Constitution does not provide that the appointment of electors shall be by popular vote . . . and leaves it to the legislature exclusively to define the method of effecting the object." (emphasis added). The Court then noted the variety of methods for selection of Electors that the state legislature could designate, including selection "by the legislature itself . . . ."

The petitioners had also argued that the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments confer a right to vote in Presidential elections. But in McPherson, the Court rejected that contention. It stated that the right to vote in Presidential elections is not protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, even though Section Two of that Amendment speaks of denials of "the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States."

The Court also said that the Fifteenth Amendment merely states an anti-discrimination rule: If a state chooses to select Presidential electors by a vote of the citizens of the state, then it may not exclude people on the basis of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. However, the state has no obligation to hold elections for President in the first place.

Other Constitutional Amendments

Strikingly, most of the amendments to the Constitution since the adoption of the Bill of Rights in 1791 have involved changes in election proceedings. Thus, even if we accept the McPherson Court's contention that the election-related amendments in place by 1892 — namely, the Twelfth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth — leave the decision whether to hold a Presidential election wholly in the hands of state legislators, surely the 20th century amendments make a difference.

Or do they? In fact, these amendments, too, succumb to the 18th and 19th century logic of McPherson. The Nineteenth Amendment extended the franchise to women, but it only provides that their right to vote "shall not be denied . . . on account of sex." If a state has no popular election for President at all, then the denial of the right to vote is not on account of sex (for men and women alike cannot vote), and the Nineteenth Amendment is not violated.

Likewise, the Twenty-Sixth Amendment protects the right to vote of citizens eighteen years or older, but only against age discrimination — and again, the wholesale denial of the right to vote to all state citizens is not discriminatory.

And perhaps most tellingly, the Twenty-Third Amendment, which extends the right to send Presidential electors to the District of Columbia, does not require that electors be selected by vote. Instead, it authorizes the selection of electors from D.C. "in such manner as the Congress may direct."

The Twenty-Fourth Amendment may provide the best argument for a constitutional right to vote in Presidential elections. It states: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax." If a state cannot constitutionally tax its citizens as the price of voting in a Presidential election, then can it constitutionally take the more drastic step of entirely denying them the right to vote — in effect imposing an infinite tax on voting?

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court's recent reinvigoration of McPherson suggests that the answer is yes. Once again, the logic of that case would indicate that the decision whether to hold Presidential elections is entirely within the state legislature's discretion. If the state legislature makes that choice, then, but only then, does the Twenty-Fourth Amendment come into play.

In short, none of these amendments — if one accepts McPherson's logic — establishes a constitutional right to vote. Instead, according to McPherson, each places limitations on how voting may occur if and only if the state makes the initial choice to hold an election; the amendments say voting will be non-discriminatory and free of charge — if, that is, we are allowed to vote at all."

FindLaw's Writ - Dorf: We Need A Constitutional Right To Vote In Presidential Elections

That is from

"Michael C. Dorf is Vice Dean and Professor of Law at Columbia University. He is co-author, with Laurence H. Tribe, of "On Reading the Constitution." Currently, he is working with Charles F. Sabel on a book, "Democratic Experimentalism," to be published by Harvard University Press."

Go argue with him.

Once again, you repeat yourself while failing to recognize that you are in no way refuting me.
Saying "we don't have a right to vote" does NOT refute me.
I look through your text and see NUMEROUS spots where voting rights are acknowledged as existing.

You repeatedly try to myopically fixate on one aspect to ignore the whole.
Like your starting rant which talks EXCLUSIVELY about presidential elections, and ONLY presidential elections.

It is NOT "just" an equal protection claim.
The irony of this insistence is proven FALSE when you quote a case which states: "...the right to vote in Presidential elections is not protected by the Fourteenth Amendment...".
And WHERE is the "equal protection" amendment found?
The 14th amendment...

Voting IS a right.
That doesn't mean that any conceivable technique of voting is protected.
But the fact that ALL of the conceivable means of voting are not being protected does NOT mean that voting is not a right.

Next time, try COMPREHENDING first before you spout off.

YOU jumped in and tried to refute me when I stated, correctly, there is no right to vote, get your facts straight before you butt in.
I didn't just say as you did with "no we don't", I have shown the court cases and the fact that several leading legislators are trying to make it so we do.

I note that you could not refute my last post. I have no interest in your ad hominem as you issue your simple dismissals of the facts. Your uninformed opinion does not trump the authoritative cites and court cases I have posted.

Repeatedly, you fail to accurately relay what is actually being said, and what actually happened.
I jumped in to give the FULL STORY.
I just explained EXPLICITLY that I am not refuting "no right to vote".



I have my facts straight.
You have yet to show me WHAT I am supposedly saying wrong.
All you do is repeat "no right to vote", "no right to vote".
But as I have repeatedly explained, that doesn't mean that we don't have voting rights.

I have even used your own resources to EXPLICITLY ACKNOWLEDGE the existence of voting rights.


And I have used your own resources against you.
I have shown how they do NOT say what you want them to say.


That's funny.
I did EXACTLY what you did.
You IGNORED my previous post and addressed NONE of it.
In fact, over and over again, you fail to address the points I make.


And in he goes with the false ad hominem claims again.
When you can't win, you go passive aggressive.
It's a sure sign that you realize you have lost...

Wow, this thread has been all kinds of derailed...

__________________

Let me know when you can refute the legal authorities I have cited. Yes i will continue to ingnore your falacious opinion in the matter.

There is NO right to vote which is why the FL state legislature could have tossed aside the 2000 election results and picked the electors themselves and not on citizen of FL could have gone to court and said thier rights had been violated. It's why government decides when and on what issue citizens will be ALLOWED to vote.

I have substaniated my position you have not.

Tired of arguing with you baseless assertions.

"But as I have repeatedly explained, that doesn't mean that we don't have voting rights."

I have been clear in my response to the OP, you jumped in. It you want to restate and agree that you have no right to vote then do so and quit arguing other matters.

Let me know when you can figure out that I AM NOT TRYING to.
NONE of your "legal authorities" are saying there is no right to vote.


That continues to be a self-fulfilling false prophecy...


Regarding the FL state election, do you really want to go down that road?
Cause you've already been busted for only quoting PART of a ruling whereby the ENTIRE quote didn't support your claim.


That's just a plain lie at this stage of the game.



Look up at the top.
This whole thread is about the "gay agenda".
Not a "right to vote"....

I have been quite clear in my position, so if you can't comprehend it that's your own problem.
I have been trying to supply the WHOLE story, whereby over and over again you provide a myopic argument of "no right to vote, no right to vote".
There is MORE to the issue than just "no right to vote", and you can't handle me adding more details.

You aren't arguing against me cause you CANNOT. You want to stick to your own pat phrase of "no right to vote", yet insist on confrontation.
You created the boundaries of your own argument, yet get frustrated when I keep talking about things OTHER than what you have mentioned.

If you don't want to respond, then don't.
Or continue like you have, in a pointless and futile denial of the obvious...
Choice is yours...

Then why did you try to refute it when I said there is no right to vote? What is your argument?

You

And then you continued to argue that voting was in fact a right which it is not.

You can't even keep up with your own arguments and I'm not going to try to anymore.

yes they did as did the court cases I have cited.


Yes it did and are you denying the fact that the state legislature could have discounted the votes and choosen the electors themselves?



I have substaniated my positions throughout the thread you are the one lying now.


Nno you have confused yourself it appears.

And you want to shift the argument since you cannot prove there is a right to vote.

Simple, I stated there is no right to vote, you said there was, I showed there is not, you tried your simple dismissals and misrepresentations and it didn't work.

"Of everything we learned about American politics from the Supreme Court's ruling in Bush v. Gore last December, nothing was more important than the Court's insistence that the people still have "no federal constitutional right to vote." We (the people) have only the voting privileges our states choose to grant us. If the Florida legislature wishes to select presidential electors without public input, the people shall not stand in the way."
A Right to Vote Amazingly, the Constitution fails to guarantee the most basic of Democratic rights

"Even though the "vote of the people" is perceived as supreme in our democracy - because voting rights are protective of all other rights - the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore constantly reminded lawyers that there is no explicit or fundamental right to suffrage in the Constitution - "the individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States." (Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 104 (2000)"
Center for Voting and Democracy


If you want to restate that you only have a right to not be discriminated against when the state allows you to cast a vote on something then fine go ahead. But that is NOT a right to vote as has been clearly shown. You have no such fundimental right.

The only "gay agenda" that exists is in the homophobic's mind.