Sometimes the majority is wrong: The 14th Amendment is there to keep the majority in check.

[ambitious_wench]

Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of 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.

Important things to consider: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the priviledges or immunities of Citizens of the United States.

Is it your right as an American citizen to marriage, and to have that marriage legally recognised in a different state from the one in which you were married? Since there is no Federal marriage certificate, does that mean that there is no federal right to marriage? No. There are federal laws regarding marriage, granting rights to spouses. So marriage at the state level has priviledges at the federal level. Further, the Federal court overturned miscegenation laws. This means it has the right to over rule laws that deny civil rights to citizens.

Note that it makes no mention of minorities in this amendment. It says "citizens". So "the will of the people" is not a factor.

Now, unless you declare that either I am not a person, or that I am not a citizen, I deserve the right to marry the consenting adult of my choice.

Discuss.

Comments

[shanmonster.livejournal.com]

Does this mean brothers may marry sisters, as long as they're both consenting adults?

[morlockx.livejournal.com]

sure. Though society may not approve.

[shanmonster.livejournal.com]

And V.C. Andrews fans heave a huge sigh of relief....

[ambitious-wench.livejournal.com]

It may. That is up to the courts to decide, though, not me.

There are existing laws on the books against consanguinious marraige. I happen to think that it's more a familial dynamic issue, rather than a genetic one; I am personally oppossed to marriage between siblings because I feel that the risk of abuse due to power dynamics is greater than the possible benifits. I'm not sure I have the right to force my beliefs on others, though.

I once read that there was a couple who met, fell in love, and decided to marry, all without knowing that they were full siblings. They had been adopted out separately, had ever developed a sibling relationship. One of them was sterile, and so there was issue with genetic problems of inbreeding.

I honestly think that they should have been allowed to marry. However, I know that this is a rare case, and that the issue of consanguinous marriage is not so clear-cut.

Oddly, the law precludes the marriage of siblings by adoption, as well, where there is no chance of reinforcement of negative traits. This tells me that there are fundamental reasons why marraige between siblings, or parent-child, are not in the common good. I'd love to hear what others have to say about it.

That being said, let me clarify: marriage between consenting non-consanguinous adults. I include adoption in that.

Interestingly, in many cultures, marriage between first cousins is encouraged. I knew a girl from Iraq who was being pressured to marry her first cousin by both sides of the family. It's considered especially good for the children of brothers to marry there, she said. This was viewed as a way of consolidating the family fortunes, alliances.

[lilrivkah.livejournal.com]

I'm wondering how not allowing a same-sex couple to marry is not discrimination? Perhaps it is better to start with the steps of creating laws in states finally including sexual orientation in discrimination laws. Then you would have a more solid case on both the federal and the state level.

Texans have been trying this for years and years, only to have their primary efforts blocked by Bush back when he was still governor.

[ambitious-wench.livejournal.com]

There are Gays trying to just do that. However, the standard objections are that Gays aren't a minority in the judicial sense because it's a "choice", that we can't be identified on sight, and that it doesn't limit our abilities.

I think that's why there's a big push to live "out". It's why I do. And yet, when I do, I'm accused of "shoving it down [their] throats".

I'm damned if I do, or damned if I don't.

As for the "choice" thang, well, I figure it this way: You can be born a Jew, or you can convert. It's still wrong to burn a cross on your lawn, paint a swastika on your door, put you in a gas chamber, or tell you you can't marry a goy.

I firmly believe that I was born non-heterosexual, but I'm open to the idea that some may indeed have chosen to be gay, lesbian, or ambisexual. Hell, some may choose to change gender identity for reasons other than being born in the wrong body. And I think that's their right.

I just laugh at the idea that being gay doesn't limit my physical abilities. Nor does being black. ER, if I were black, that is.

Edie

[lilrivkah.livejournal.com]

On the 'choice' issue, I agree with you that it isn't a choice, but even if it WERE a choice (because you’ll have difficulty convicing the truly stubborn otherwise), think of this:

Discrimination is the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually. In other words, anti-discriminatory laws protect a group of people rather than an individual. If you're African American, you're part of an racial group. If your a woman, you're part of a gender group. If you're 60+, you're part of an age group.

Now, all of the aforementioned groups are determined by genetics and genetics alone. So, what are all the groups that are protected by anti-discrimination laws in the US?

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from discriminating against applicants and employees on the basis of race or color, religion, sex, pregnancy, childbirth and national origin.

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act prohibits discrimination against employees who are age 40 or older.

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 prohibits employers from discriminating against applicants or employees on the basis of their citizenship or national origin.

The Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits employers from discriminating against a person with a disability.

Lawyers cannot argue that civil rights only apply to things that are not a choice when religious affiliation is a choice and is still covered under anti-discriminatory laws. A person can't help their ethnicity or skin color, but they CAN change their religion.

Therefore, an argument about whether or not homosexuality is choice or not is a moot point when it comes to anti-discrimination laws. What it REALLY comes down to is, "Is it possible to discriminate against someone because of their affiliation with a particular group?"

John Smith is straight. John Smith wants to work for my company. My company will ONLY hire homosexuals. John Smith meets all the qualifications of the job, but is not hired because of his sexual orientation. My company discriminated against the individual because of his affiliation with a particular group. It is sexual discrimination.

Paul is a gay man. Paul goes downtown with his boyfriend on Saturday night. Paul and his boyfriend are tagged by a group of young men and Paul is beaten to death, his boyfriend in a coma. When the group of boys are questioned for their behavior they state, "We did it because they were gay." These boys descriminated against the individual because of the gay men's affiliation with the gay and lesbian group identity. The boys did not know these two gay men beforehand. All they know was their 'group identity' and discriminated against them accordingly.

From my viewpoint, there is not reason to NOT add sexual orientation to the anti-discrimination laws.