Are equal rights for gay people constitutionally guaranteed?

Question

A few days ago, someone asked "Are you for gay marriages?" I gave the answer which I always do, which is to say that I am for legislatures creating new laws which guarantee us equal rights, but I am not in favor of courts misinterpreting the already existing law, such as what happened in Massachusetts. (As usual, I got a thumbs-down. Only one, which is unusual, because I usually get several thumbs-down.)

Be that as it may, the guy who answered immediately after me said,
"Of course I do, and so does the US Constitution, which is supposed to guarantee the same rights to all US citizens."

How many of you interpret the U.S. Constitution that way? And if you agree with that statement, please tell me whether you have ever looked at any Sup. Ct. rulings.

Here was the previous question:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ar.KU8c61LJw3zlpwpZkIQnty6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20071001122735AAaLnL5&show=7#profile-info-UAzSal27aa

Okay, Kyle. I gave you thumbs down. And I wish you could provide some evidence to support your claim that people like me -- people who take the original meaning of the Constitution seriously -- are dying out.

Wide Awake, you were the guy I was talking about. You made the comment which I quote in this question. So you do interpret the 14th Amendment as a guarantee that gay people have equal rights. That's your interpretation. Now, as I said before, have you read the case law ... the precedents? Have you read Romer v. Evans, 1996? Have you read Boutilier v. INS, 1967?

Answer 1

Actually, gay citizens are not mentioned in the United States Constitution (as you well know). Neither are straight people. However, the basic founding documents of this nation were carefully worded so that no religious group could gain governmental predominance over other citizens. True the founders wre Christians, but they carefully sought to create a government in which laws were not based on religious interpretation. I believe any law based on a person or groups religious beliefs to be wrong, and unconstitutional. I do not believe gay citizens need legislation to give them rights. The constitution guarantees equal treatment under law to all citizens.
I have looked at many Supreme Court rulings. They are at best a fickle barometer. Keep in mind, in the Dred Scott case the court upheld a persons right to own another person as property. Supreme court decisions are legal opinions. The constitution is the law. The constitution is a document filled with promise for all citizens. We need to keep the promises of that document.

Shelley, you fool yourself if you believe homosexuality did not exist at the time of the founding fathers. Youa lso fool yourself if you believe there is equality. Gay couples are not allowed to share benifits, have no next of kin rights, cannot marry the person of their choice (no matter how you twist the wording), cannot adopt in most places, cannot serve in the military. Broaden your mind, do a little research before you answer.

Answer 2

Thank you, George Bush Jr, for denouncing "activist judges". Very few social reforms would pass muster. Black people would never have been able to convince a legislature to end segregation, but it was the right thing to do, and they shouldn't have had to do that, state by state. The bottom line is, democracy is about equal rights for all. It is not about "mob rule". If a group is not being treated equally under the law, then it is the JOB of the court to set that right. If we rely on legislatures who are more worried about being re-elected than about justice and equality, then nothing will ever get done. That is WHY Supreme Court justices serve for life, so they can be above partisan squabbling and public opinion. To strip the judicial branch of government of its power, as you suggest, would end true democracy. There is a reason there is a balance of power. I suggest you consider that, Mr Constitutional Conservative.

And you have yet to answer the simple opinion question - are you for or against gay marriage? I suspect this is your insidious way of being against it, without having the b@lls to declare yourself. That's why you're getting a thumbs down. I bet you had no problem with the Supreme Court's power when they handed ole W the election he didn't win.

And don't say you were talking about state courts only, that's a cop out. The MA court is part of the state's judicial branch the same way the Supreme Court is the Federal judicial branch. Either declare yourself and your agenda, or sneak out of the debate the same way you sneaked in.

Answer 3

"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".

It's the equal protection clause that gives gays and everyone else the right to be viewed the same under the law. Gays are not seen as any less a citizen than anyone else because if they were that means that the law would treat one group one way and homosexuals another. That flies in the face of the term 'equal protection'. However, if your question is about gay-marriage then one would have to determine whether or not marriage is a right or a priviledge. Marriage is not mentioned explicitly anywhere in the Constitution that I know of.

Answer 4

Actually the Bill of *Rights* consists of the first TEN amendments to the constitution. Furthermore, those TEN amendments do not have a one to one relationship to rights. They have a many to one relationship with rights, where one amendment enumerates a whole field of rights. Still, all of this is beside the point. The "over 1,000 rights" that your friend speaks of are the responsibilities, protections, and benefits bestowed upon those who are recognized in society as being in a spousal relationship (civil marriage for those of you in Rio Linda). In this country, gay people are denied the ability to enter into a meaningful spousal relationship, and thus, are denied these rights. By the way, those 1,000 rights are only federal rights. They don't include the rights that are denied to you at the state level and below.

Answer 5

The way that I read the Constitution (which a copy is on my wall at home, along with the Declaration of Independence, and Bill of Rights) everyone is entitled to marriage. It does not state only straight couples, or gay couples. We are all equal and all deserve equal treatment.

Bless the USA

Answer 6

Note that those who would ban same-gender marriage would have to AMEND the Consitution to support their hatreds.

(I usually add this to my statement, which is an extremely common and usual interpretation, that the US Constitution is designed to provide equal rights for all.)

Look at the "slavery amendments" to the Constitution if you want further examples of the document being meant to provide equal rights for all. Of course "the Constitution" includes the Amendments to it.

Answer 7

Wow... Since gays are one of the last groups to truly be discriminated against then yes i think that the idea of equal rights for all is great..... and to the comment about out founding father's I'm not so sure they would be that upset about it... i mean they were escaping religious persecution while wearing tights and long curly wigs.... just my opinion

Answer 8

I didn't read your previous question, however, I agree with you. Gays should have equal rights. 2D

Answer 9

the declaration of independence says you have the right to pursue happiness .

Answer 10

No idea what your constitution states: I'm not American.

However, with Bush in... it's more like 'Re-constitution'.