Why doesn't anyone frame the pro-gay marriage argument in the First Amendment context?

Counciltucky

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Mar-09-07 12:35 AM
Original message

Why doesn't anyone frame the pro-gay marriage argument in the First Amendment context?

Think about it: marriage is definitely a speech act, an act which communicates a bond between two people to others. Restricting it is restricting freedom of speech.

And that isn't even delving into the freedom of religion aspect. Churches have the right to decline to marry homosexual couples (like most non-Episcopal churches) -- separation of church and state should not be infringed -- but the state should NOT restrict marriages to anyone who wants it, gay or straight.

We on the pro-gay rights side should argue in the context of the First Amendment. The Constitution should be respected no matter what, and denying gay rights is denying First Amendment rights.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

rwenos

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Mar-09-07 01:16 AM
Response to Original message

1. First Amendment Protects Speech, Not Acts

Edited on Fri Mar-09-07 01:17 AM by rwenos

The Court has pretty consistently ruled that, while the First Amendment restrains government power to impede SPEECH, the First Amendment does not protect ACTS.

The lead case I read in law school on this issue was a case from Oregon, where a Native American practitioner of a folk religion asserted a right to ingest peyote as part of his religious observance. Held, he can think and say what he wants, but peyote is illegal and so there's no First Amendment protection for ingesting it. Can't remember the name of the case, but the State of Oregon would be a party, and it would have been decided in the mid- to late 1980s.

Sorry.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Der Blaue Engel

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Mar-09-07 02:41 AM
Response to Reply #1

2. American Indian Religious Freedom Act Amendments of 1994

According to this website, following the 1990 Supreme Court ruling, the American Indian Religious Freedom Act was amended by Congress in 1994, protecting the right of Native Americans to use peyote for religious ceremonies:

http://www.nativeamericanchurch.com/law.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Solly Mack

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Mar-09-07 04:12 AM
Response to Reply #1

4. Flag burning is an act and is speech

and has been protected as speech

Yes, I'm aware it's under attack but that doesn't change that it is an act that is speech.

Just one example where an act is considered free speech.

The SCOTUS upheld it as free speech as well in Texas V Johnson and U.S. v. Eichman

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

HiFructosePronSyrup

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Mar-09-07 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #1

7. Where on earth did you get that idea?

Certainly not in civics classes.

The First Amendment protects the right to act by going to the church of your choice, the act of printing what you want in the press, the act of assembling, the act of petitioning the government for grievances, and the act of speech, such as burning a flag.

Sheesh.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Counciltucky

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Mar-09-07 04:28 PM
Response to Reply #7

8. Exactly.

If an act is clearly representative of something, it's protected by the First Amendment.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

cboy4

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Mar-09-07 04:02 AM
Response to Original message

3. How about simply asking, how does allowing a same sex couple

tying the knot really affect a straight person's life negatively?

The last time I checked, civil war has not broken out in Canada and in Spain and in Holland, etc., where gay marriage is legal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

GreenZoneLT

(805 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Mar-09-07 06:25 AM
Response to Original message

5. They don't ban gay marriage ceremonies

UU churches and some other denominations have been doing those for years, including in states with "gay marriage bans." What the marriage-ban laws affect is the state-sponsored privileges of marriage, embodied in a marriage license (which is a civil legal contract).

You can get married in the eyes of a church anywhere you like, you just can't get survivor benefits or tax breaks, or dependant insurance, etc.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Counciltucky

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Mar-09-07 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #5

6. That's what I meant: state sponsorship. n/t

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Tue May 07th 2024, 09:03 AM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.