Utah Supreme Court Will Hear Case Against Lesbian Teacher

[maudmac]

I was so disappointed when Clinton signed DOMA. The first thing I thought was, "Why are you even thinking about it, DOMA's blatantly unconstitutional?!?" When VT got its civil union thingy, I thought, "DOMA is soooooo going down." I hope I live long enough to see that.

All these prohibitions against "promoting homosexuality" make me so mad I want to dust off the old Lesbian Avengers "We Recruit" t-shirt. I miss my WE'RE HERE, WE'RE QUEER, GET USED TO IT days. I appreciate that antagonizing the phobe-fundies probably isn't the best way to get them to accept us, but it sure is fun.

quote:

---

Originally posted by WbBuffyfan00:
I really thought it was closer to slapout!

---

Slapout!!! I forgot all about Slapout!!!

Look at the Alabama Kitties! (Sidenote: wouldn't it be cool as hell if Amber brought Chance to Sidewalk? She went a couple years ago, I don't know what for. But, hey, hometown, film festival, it could happen.)

quote:

[Banshee]

quote:

---

Originally posted by invisigoth:
I have a question for Banshee about DOMA, since it appears that you have done research on the subject. The statute only refers to same sex marriages, correct? It doesn't say anything about civil unions or domestic parntership agreements, does it? I'm wondering if there can be a case made that full faith and credit must apply to the creation of those new forms of union.

---

I believe right now that there are cases in Georgia and Massachucettes--but, those are the only ones. But, after that, I wouldn't be suprised if there was an upswing of states that added 'civil union' to their list of discriminations--but, after all of the reading that i've done regarding 'homosexuality'(as it is written in holdings of courts) and constitutional law, I find myself being more apprehensive than ever.

Also, what's sad, is that FFC was added to protect married couples from having to deal w/repeated litigation from state to state in order to prove the validity of their marriage.. Also,adoption was another matter--funny that those are two issues that are plagueing us right now. And, the supreme court has said, time and time again, that MARRIAGE is one of those basic fundamental issues that should be available to us.

Here are some things:
Full Faith and Credit Clause:
Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
Section 2. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

14th Amendment states that:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and 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

This strictly addresses the issue of same-sex marriage in the respect that ‘homosexuals’ are being denied their due process in their seeking personal liberties.

It has been cited several times in the Supreme Court that marriage is one of the most fundamental, “basic civil rights of man.”7 Skinner v. Oklahoma 316 U.S. 535, 541(1942)

Also, Congress’ attempt to federally define ‘marriage’ as ‘one man and one woman’ is a violation of due process on the basis of sex discrimination. Not only that, but as found in Romer v. Evans(116 S. CT, 1996), Congress fails where Colorado did. In that case, the Supreme Court opinioned that Colorado imposed “a broad and undifferentiated disability on a single name group.” They also stated “that such laws singling out a certain class of citizens for disfavored legal status or general hardships” would not even survive through the most minimal of equal protection scrutiny.

------------------
"Believe me I don't want to go,
And it'll grieve me 'cause I love you so
But we both know..."quote:

[Adorai]

The constitution states very clearly that the federal government should be limited in it's power, and that local and state governments should have a very large say in how things are run in their jurisdiction. Since the Constitution doesn't specifically protect sexual orientation, it is entirely up to the state and local governments to dictate policy on these matters. The goal of the constitution was to make the states a large patchwork of legal and moral issues, where if you did not like the way things were in your neck of the woods you could move to a different city/county/state where things were more to your liking, while still remaining a citizen of the United States.

In my opinion, one of the biggest problems in America today is that the federal government has far too much power and influence, yet the people seem to want it to take more. There are many issues which should be dictated at the lower levels of government. Not only sexual orientation, but also abortion, gun control, education, etc..

I'd also like to point out that while I don't think the federal government should be protecting sexual orientation choice, I do think local and state governments should do just that.

[Shadowcat]

Ugh. This is such bullshit. Sodomy laws are so freaking rediculous as it is. It's insane that they are still enforced. How many people actually have sex only to procreate??!

Grr. Grr, I say.

------------------
Kitty Trauma Victim #123

[Banshee]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shadowcat:
Ugh. This is such bullshit. Sodomy laws are so freaking rediculous as it is. It's insane that they are still enforced. How many people actually have sex only to procreate??!

Grr. Grr, I say.

---

Sodomy laws are a bunch of shit.. especially when you have something like the case of Bowers v. Hardwick(1986) from Georgia. Basically, the S.C. ruled that there is 'right to privacy' for homosexuals-also, to note, there was a heterosexual couple that tried to sue the state of Georgia to have the Sodomy laws repealed because they said it infringed on their rights, also. Well, that couple was told that the law didn't apply to them becuase it was meant to disuade homosexuals for engaging in 'immoral acts.'

Adorai said:

I'd also like to point out that while I don't think the federal government should be protecting sexual orientation choice, I do think local and state governments should do just that.

Well, I have to disagree w/that one--on two fronts. One, to even use the word 'choice' is to imply that there is one in regard to sexuality. Being a lesbian, the only choice I give myself is honesty of what my mind and biology dictates.
Secondly, I also believe that the federal gov't should have a hand in protecting minorities in this country--whether they be religious, racial, sexual or otherwise. The S.C. has a role in this in making sure that laws are not passed that single out or great extreme duress to a disadvantaged group. White men have more political protection because their race and gender are protected by strict and quasi-strict scrutiny. You can't bar a white man from your organization, but you can a gay person--even though, through statistics and common sense, it is that latter that is at the greater societal disadvantage.

-S

------------------
"Believe me I don't want to go,
And it'll grieve me 'cause I love you so
But we both know..."quote: