Equal Rights (2 Viewers)

[superchuck500]

2. Gay Marriage is anti-family.

Gay marriage is anti-family? what a joke, time for people to wake up.

The American Academy of Pediatrics agrees with you. Two married adults in the "parent" role is better for children regardless of the gender or sexual orientation of the adults.

“Children thrive in families that are stable and that provide permanent security, and the way we do that is through marriage,” said Benjamin Siegel, MD, FAAP, chair of the AAP Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health, and a co-author of the policy statement. “The AAP believes there should be equal opportunity for every couple to access the economic stability and federal supports provided to married couples to raise children.”

In a previous policy statement published in 2002 and reaffirmed in 2010, the AAP supported second-parent adoption by partners of the same sex as a way to protect children’s right to maintain relationships with both parents, eligibility for health benefits and financial security. The 2013 policy statement and accompanying technical report adds recommendations in support of civil marriage for same-gender couples; adoption by single parents, co-parents or second parents regardless of sexual orientation; and foster care placement regardless of sexual orientation.

“The AAP has long been an advocate for all children, and this updated policy reflects a natural progression in the Academy’s support for families,” said Ellen Perrin, MD, FAAP, co-author of the policy statement. “If a child has two loving and capable parents who choose to create a permanent bond, it’s in the best interest of their children that legal institutions allow them to do so.”

A great deal of scientific research documents there is no cause-and-effect relationship between parents’ sexual orientation and children’s well-being, according to the AAP policy. In fact, many studies attest to the normal development of children of same-gender couples when the child is wanted, the parents have a commitment to shared parenting, and the parents have strong social and economic support. Critical factors that affect the normal development and mental health of children are parental stress, economic and social stability, community resources, discrimination, and children’s exposure to toxic stressors at home or in their communities -- not the sexual orientation of their parents.

According to the policy statement, the AAP “supports pediatricians advocating for public policies that help all children and their parents, regardless of sexual orientation, build and maintain strong, stable, and healthy families that are able to meet the needs of their children.”

American Academy of Pediatrics Supports Same Gender Civil Marriage

 

[Claw]

David I get your point. I guess I was more focused on the campaign behind equal rights. If they used Marriage Rights then I wouldn't be concerned.

Why shouldn't they use equal rights? They want equal rights to marry who they want, just as the straight folk have. You're logic makes about as much sense as the Saints signing Tebow, or George Jones.

 

[V Chip]

However, as a individual all people have the same individual rights regardless of their sexual orientation, just as all individuals have the same individual rights regardless of their skin color.

Absolutely not true.

 

[St. Widge]

Fair enough - I'm not so sure that the rubric in which the degrees of scrutiny fall is compelled by "states rights" but indeed the rationale for the law can overcome a discriminatory impact depending on the level of scrutiny applied to the particular class. I should have made it clear that when I was talking about "constitutional equal protection" I was referring to strict scrutiny afforded to homosexuals by virtue of their being a suspect classification.

In theory, rational basis applies to anything. (For instance, someone could allege that the DMV's operating hours discriminate against those who work at night or have fear of the daylight. But those aren't suspect classifications and there's clearly legitimate rationale for having the DMV open during regular business hours). But equal protection takes its intended form, IMO, when we're talking about suspect classes.

So I see what you mean now. You're suggesting that states may have a greater interest that I am suggesting. In other words, you're not yet set on strict scrutiny whereas I'm arguing that exactly that.

To be clear, from my point of view everyone should be afforded protected class status and that includes homosexuals. But, to my knowledge, at this point, the U.S. Supreme Court has refused to give them protected class status and has only given violations of equal rights for homosexuals Rational Basis scrutiny. Which is why I think that the "Civil Unions" stuff may gain some traction and could be the end result of all of this.

Now, to be even more clear, if I was in charge, everyone would get protected class status under the Equal Protection Clause and gay marriage would be legal, but I'm not in charge and as far as I know, the S. Court has not given that level protection to equal protection claims based on sexual orientation.

 

[B-Train]

I'm guessing my "truth bomb" kept it just a bit too real since people are shying away from it, standing by their comfortable "statist" ideals. Government should never have the right to tell ANYONE whether or not they can engage in a social contract.

 

[Flipx99]

Nope. Have you seen a whites only water fountain lately?

It actually has not been that long ago. And in fairness, it didn't say white "only," it just said "white." Right just across the sidewalk there was a seperate (but I suppose equal) fountain marked "colored."

Hard to believe that was in the 1980's -- in front of a courthouse.

But back on topic, just let gay people have the right to marry already, you know it's coming so even if you don't like it what's the point. Let gay people have the right to make the same mistakes as the rest of us.

 

[SaintBrad]

It actually has not been that long ago. And in fairness, it didn't say white "only," it just said "white." Right just across the sidewalk there was a seperate (but I suppose equal) fountain marked "colored."

Hard to believe that was in the 1980's -- in front of a courthouse.

But back on topic, just let gay people have the right to marry already, you know it's coming so even if you don't like it what's the point. Let gay people have the right to make the same mistakes as the rest of us.

It has little to actually do with gay, and more to do with left wing vs right wing. Give a politician an inch, and they take a mile. Thats what this is really about.

The courts are gonna be the most likely to find it discriminating and can do something about it without waiting 10 years for congress or the house.

 

[Jeff Miller]

Absolutely not true.

well in that case, i guess we just scrap the whole issue entirely

 

[Goatman Saint]

I'm not quite sure why a legal definition and status is decided based on a religious service. What I mean is since all this is a legal matter, health care, dependency, inheritance, survivor rights, and such which all fall under a legal definition, why not simply make marriage an act that has to be done by a justice of the peace? Even if you are going for the big church ceremony, your legal marriage under law is done legally that way. Your religious ceremony would then mean absolutely nothing legally, only to your church. That way anyone would have the legal rights, and religion would simply be cut out of the deal.

 

[Twyst]

I'm guessing my "truth bomb" kept it just a bit too real since people are shying away from it, standing by their comfortable "statist" ideals. Government should never have the right to tell ANYONE whether or not they can engage in a social contract.

Marriage is not just a "social contract" in today's society. No one has ignored your "truth bomb", this post just pretty much ended the discussion on it.

I see what you're saying and I agree with you. However, our government has legislated certain benefits into tax, insurance, hospital, property and other laws for those in a legal marriage contract. These benefits are being denied to a some individuals based on their sexual preference.

http://saintsreport.com/forums/5033541-post75.html

 

[St.Fury]

Straight people have the right to marry who they want, those that they are attracted to. Gay people do not have that right.

A gay man can marry a gay woman and they can have a gay marriage.

 

[St. Widge]

I'm guessing my "truth bomb" kept it just a bit too real since people are shying away from it, standing by their comfortable "statist" ideals. Government should never have the right to tell ANYONE whether or not they can engage in a social contract.

Let me ask you this, if the government had nothing to do with contacts, how would they be enforced?

 

[birdog]

A gay man can marry a gay woman and they can have a gay marriage.

 

[Lurkaholic]

I'm not quite sure why a legal definition and status is decided based on a religious service. What I mean is since all this is a legal matter, health care, dependency, inheritance, survivor rights, and such which all fall under a legal definition, why not simply make marriage an act that has to be done by a justice of the peace? Even if you are going for the big church ceremony, your legal marriage under law is done legally that way. Your religious ceremony would then mean absolutely nothing legally, only to your church. That way anyone would have the legal rights, and religion would simply be cut out of the deal.

It is already set up this way. The legal part of your marriage is the signing of the license. The government has no use for the "vows" portion of your marriage when a signature is more enforceable.

 

[Taurus]

The Government shouldn't be recognizing anyone's marriage, and it certainly shouldn't be allowed to give me permission to own my own property. Therefore it shouldn't matter at all anyway. Also, taxes is the Government's way of robbing people to fund their regulatory process, so being as how that shouldn't exist either, Marriage certainly shouldn't play any role in their operations.

The Teaparty in a nutshell...a bunch of anarchistic freeloaders.