Gay Teen Filmmaker Eric James Borges Commits Suicide
- Thread starter Cancel 2018. 3
- Start date
Socrtease
Verified User
Eric Borges was not continually bullied by kids that were born hating queers any more than KKK kids were born hating blacks or German kids were born hating Jews. They were taught by the adults in their lives that typically surrounded themselves with more adults that believed the same way and who followed political leaders, on local, state and federal level that looked at the world the same way. Ignorance begets ignorance.
icedancer2theend
Verified User
Let me clarify it: Marriage is reserved for one man and one woman. All men and all women citizens are equal here.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
where is that in the constitution or state laws?
A rat's ass. Was that meant as a disparaging sexual comment about gays?
When you're winning an argument you don't need desperate tactics. It's a normal colloquialism.
I never saw anybody spit on a gay dude, ever. Not once. Wherever a person grew up that it happened is nothing like the places I've been.
icedancer2theend
Verified User
United States Federal Law
Introduction
Marriage laws in the United States are almost exclusively governed by state law. There are however, federal statutes which rely on marital status to determine federal rights and benefits, so the definition of marriage is important to federal law. In addition, the U.S. Constitution's Supremacy Clause ensures that the U.S. Supreme Court can review the constitutionality of laws relating to marriage.
Federal Defense of Marriage Act (1996)
Section 1.
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word "marriage" means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word "spouse" refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife. Pub. L. 104-199, sec 1, 100 Stat. 2419 (Sep. 21, 1996) codified at 1 U.S.C. §7 (1997).
Section 2.
No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession or tribe, respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other state, territory, possession or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship. Pub. L. 104-199 sec. 2, 100 Stat. 2419 (Sep. 21, 1996) codified at 28 U.S.C. §1738C (1997).
icedancer2theend
Verified User
Supreme Court Marriage Cases
Although state law generally governs marriages, there have been some important U.S. Supreme Court decisions relating to marriage in the last fifty years.[1] The most famous is Loving v. Virginia [2], in which the Court struck down Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute. In Loving, the Court held that the U.S. Constitution provides a fundamental right to marry that cannot be restricted because of the race of the man or woman being married. The contours of this right to marry were further established in Zablocki v. Redhail [3], where the Court struck down a Wisconsin law that required noncustodial parents who had child support obligations to obtain court permission before marrying. Then in 1987, the Court struck down a Missouri regulation that prevented prisoners from marrying without the prison superintendent's permission and which restricted that permission to "compelling" circumstances.[4] Thus, the Supreme Court has placed important limits on what states can do in their regulation of marriage.
Professor Lynn D. Wardle has noted that U.S. Supreme Court opinions regarding marriage have established the following principles:
* The rational for recognizing a right to marry is that it is "deeply rooted in the history and traditions of our people."
* The right to marry is constitutionally protected because it is a natural right.
* The right to marry is important because it is essential to the "ordered liberty of our society."
* The right to marry is fundamental because it is associated with the traditional family.
* The right to marry is linked to "responsible procreation and child-rearing."
* The right to marry is a part of the right of privacy.
* The government has "the authority and the duty to regulate marriage."
* The regulation of marriage is primarily a legislative responsibility.
* The Supreme Court has shown "substantial deference to state lawmakers."
* The Constitution sets limits on restrictions of the right to marry.
* The standard of review for laws regulating marriage is different than strict scrutiny.[5]
Although state law generally governs marriages, there have been some important U.S. Supreme Court decisions relating to marriage in the last fifty years.[1] The most famous is Loving v. Virginia [2], in which the Court struck down Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute. In Loving, the Court held that the U.S. Constitution provides a fundamental right to marry that cannot be restricted because of the race of the man or woman being married. The contours of this right to marry were further established in Zablocki v. Redhail [3], where the Court struck down a Wisconsin law that required noncustodial parents who had child support obligations to obtain court permission before marrying. Then in 1987, the Court struck down a Missouri regulation that prevented prisoners from marrying without the prison superintendent's permission and which restricted that permission to "compelling" circumstances.[4] Thus, the Supreme Court has placed important limits on what states can do in their regulation of marriage.
Professor Lynn D. Wardle has noted that U.S. Supreme Court opinions regarding marriage have established the following principles:
* The rational for recognizing a right to marry is that it is "deeply rooted in the history and traditions of our people."
* The right to marry is constitutionally protected because it is a natural right.
* The right to marry is important because it is essential to the "ordered liberty of our society."
* The right to marry is fundamental because it is associated with the traditional family.
* The right to marry is linked to "responsible procreation and child-rearing."
* The right to marry is a part of the right of privacy.
* The government has "the authority and the duty to regulate marriage."
* The regulation of marriage is primarily a legislative responsibility.
* The Supreme Court has shown "substantial deference to state lawmakers."
* The Constitution sets limits on restrictions of the right to marry.
* The standard of review for laws regulating marriage is different than strict scrutiny.[5]
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
so the law had to be changed/created to deny same sex couples equal rights.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
different than strict scrutiny? what is the cite for that? further, i guess we shouldn't allow people who don't want kids or can't have kids to marry. i mean afterall....marriage is about procreation. why give those people "special" rights?
icedancer2theend
Verified User
Your question has no bearing on matter. The rulings and opinions are not held to the strict interpretation you wish to impose, but only to one aspect of SC opinions.
the link
icedancer2theend
Verified User
No they already have the same equal right. What they are asking for is a change in the law to grant them a special classification. That is a fact, not an opinion. You asked me a question and I answered it. Now you want me to argue merits?
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
interesting how my question does not have any bearing on the matter, yet, the same issue has a bearing on the matter when it suits your agenda. see, when it fits your agenda, you will address it, however, when it doesn't, it all of a sudden has no bearing. that is a convenient point of view.
the cite that marriage cases are not held to strict scrutiny is not entirely accurate. loving v. virginia held that marriage is a fundamental right. scotus has held that fundamental rights are subject to strict scrutiny.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
i don't understand...why the need for DOMA then? why the need for a new law?
they are not asking for a change in the law (in some cases yes), what they are asking for is the same right that you and i enjoy, the fundamental right to marry. like i said, and as you showed, those opposing gay marriage have had to change the law to outlaw their right to marry. DOMA, california....etc.... but you want to make believe that only gays want to change the law. that simply is not true or factual.
sorry ID, your opinion is not fact. and why wouldn't i want you to argue merits? that is the whole point of a debate, is it not?
icedancer2theend
Verified User
DOMA was enacted so that other states were not forced to recognize SSM. I thought you knew this? Again, I am only providing the answers you asked for- I am uninterested in arguing the merits of the laws. I entered this thread to discuss Socs outrageous attacks- then you interjected into a post I made to ask for me to answer a question- I did that. The facts are not mine they are simply the facts. Homosexuals have the same rights as all other Americans. What they are asking for is a special designation or class, written into the law.
Last edited:
icedancer2theend
Verified User
It had no bearing on your original question yurt! You asked me "what special law" I answered. As to your assertion regarding strict scrutiny take it up with SCOTUS~
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
i did know this. you made a point that gays want to change/create new laws. i simply pointed out that so do those opposed to gay marriage. you have yet to address that.
if you're not interested in discussing the laws......why did you post two posts citing laws?
homosexuals do not have the same rights. if they did, they could walk to any 'elvis'...get married...walk to a courthouse and legally get married. that is a fact. period.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
no you didn't.
where is the cite that marriage is not reviewed under strict scrutiny?
icedancer2theend
Verified User
They do. They are doing so. I posted laws to support my contentions regarding your questions. Homosexuals do have the same rights. Any homosexual can marry anyone of the opposite sex- That is the current legal understanding and definition of the law- for that to change- "new laws" MUST be made that recognize homosexuals as a "special class".