Calling all "Chimp Cage Residents!" A simple YES or NO question, if you please.

[Tyler Durden]

Before anyone gets all huffy, I assume I now have your attention.

I have a very simple question: Does your candidate support the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States?

Here is Section 1, the main body:

"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."

This apparently does not have any exclusions, such as "This does not apply to atheists, Muslims, the mental or physically challenged, or male/female homosexuals, bisexuals, transexuals or transgendered persons," and does not let states off the hook.

So, for the sake of this question, I don't care here WHO is your "Chosen One": Obama, Clinton, McCain or Mickey Mouse. Examine them, tell the truth, and post it here, If you have the guts.

I'll go first.

NO. Hillary Clinton does not support the 14th Amendment. She does not support removal of all restrictions on the activities and rights of GLBT Americans.

That said, I don't want excuses from ANY campaign, even the one I support, and I especially don't want to hear anything about how anyone's "FAITH" won't allow them to support a concept that must apply completely and totally across the legal board.

Frankly, if a candidate cannot support COMPLETE AND EQUAL TREATMENT UNDER THE LAW, then they cannot take the oath of office, and therefore CANNOT BE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. If they do so, then they are subject to IMMEDIATE IMPEACHMENT as they are in violation of their oath of office to support the Constitution.

That EVERYONE cannot see this makes me get migraines, tunnel vision, and a killing RAGE. I just handle it well.

Now show some moral fortitude and tell the truth.

[Tyler Durden]

1. Cowards: BOTH campaigns.

Sad to be SO DEDICATED to a candidate that is going to be breaking the law the SECOND they take the oath, no matter WHO it is, isn't it?

[Tyler Durden]

2. One more time: COWARDS. I'm going home.

Show some guts, why don't you?

[guruoo]

3. Well, OK then...

[Tyler Durden]

10. Cheap, and stupid.

Be honest, or post somewhere else.

[NorthernSpy]

4. so go, already...

You're why we can't get anything done. You're one of those who spends all his time sniping at our own. We're not perfect, but we're all we've got.


Dear God how I wish you were on the other side.

[moriah]

5. As with many things in politics, gotta choose the lesser of the evils...

McCain certainly would, even if he himself would be willing to accept that the LGBT/GLBT (I guess cuz I'm a chick I do the LGBT more often) community deserves equal protection under the law (even though I've not researched his positions I highly doubt he's been a strong advocate), allow the social conservatives whose votes he desperately will need in November push him into advocating their position on LGBT rights -- that the community isn't deserving of equal protection under the law because "they're evil".

At least with either Hillary or Obama there's a chance for progress, which is highly unlikely under McCain.

Personally, if we want to go for "equal protection under the law" along with "Congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of religion", I think we should strike "marriage" from the whole schema. EVERYONE, gay or straight, who wishes to commit to a person and have recognition of that long-term commitment by the government, should be in a "civil union" as far as the law is concerned. Marriage, to many people, is a religious ceremony. Those who don't see it as religious have no problems with a JP performing the "civil" ceremony. Let "marriage" be ordained by each religion as they see fit -- for example, even if you are straight you can't marry a Catholic in a Catholic ceremony without being Catholic yourself and the church doesn't officially recognize marriages outside of their own ceremonies, so religions already have a history of excluding from their definition of "marriage" what the law recognizes currently as "marriage".

If a LGBT couple wants to "marry", there are religions that will "marry" them, and fighting to have other religions recognize the validity of such a "marriage" can be directed towards the religions that don't recognize LGBT marriage.

But the law, the government, should recognize the commitment between two adults regardless of the gender of those adults or which religions recognize the commitment. THAT is equal protection without respecting establishments of religion.

Just my thoughts as a person who has been called an "ally" to the GLBT/LGBT community by people whose opinion I respect and value. (Specifically members of a GLBT community whose functions I've been privileged enough to be invited to attend -- looking forward to going to the Sanctuary this Beltane and not discussing politics unless someone else starts it.)

(Edit for clarification)

[JackBeck]

6. Everyone should have a "civil union"?

Then how are you going to prevent states from only bestowing states rights to those who have been given this religious blessing of marriage?

[moriah]

8. So there are states that don't recognize marriages by a JP?

That's a civil union in most sense of the words, it's a civil ceremony and not a religious marriage. They have to recognize common law "marriages" that other states have ordained -- there wasn't even a ceremony there!

The amendments to the state constitutions only recognizing marriage as between men and women are Federally unconstitutional, IMHO -- based on the equal protection under the law argument that the OP used. And an attempt to only recognize a religious marriage, I think, would DEFINITELY be unconstitutional. States Rights only are allowed when that right is constitutional under the Federal constitution.

What is going to happen, or at least what I pray happens if there's not another way to challenge those IMHO unconstitutional amendments, is that a GLBT couple in a civil union/marriage recognized by one state will move to another state that has passed one of these unconstitutional amendments, fight to get it recognized, go through the court system, and finally hit the Supreme Court with the question of whether these amendments are unconstitutional. (They can't really rule on an issue unless the issue is brought to them.)

What we have to do is prepare for such a battle, and the many other battles that the GLBT community and its allies will fight in the future to gain that equal protection under the law, is to elect a president who will nominate judges, both to the Supreme Court and to the other federal courts, who will be able/willing to see that the LGBT community IS entitled to equal protection under the law. McCain certainly will be pressured by the social conservatives who he will most likely end up pandering to in order to get their support to nominate judges who will trash not only GLBT rights but all civil rights. Our candidates are definitely better than our opponent!

If my state had a civil union ceremony, I would gladly enter into it over a "marriage" to show how much I support the cause. Already my man and I are considered to be in a "domestic partnership" as far as my work is concerned -- they cover domestic partners under the company's insurance policy. We are very committed to each other, and both of us would be willing to sacrifice privileges that we are entitled to only because we happen to be of the opposite sex in order to show our solidarity with the GLBT community on this issue. Our religion would marry us if we were the same sex so that's not a concern for us, the religious part of the marriage. That can be done with or without registering the marriage with the state.

I know a couple who would be faulted under the unconstitutional laws, from what I understand. They were married before any of the states started recognizing marriages/civil unions between same sex couples.

One of them was born female but was transgendered, and she had started the process of the sex change. They hadn't yet done surgery but had started hormones, and the state processed the gender change. But she turned out to be very allergic to the hormones, and was unable to go through with the reassignment surgery. But while she was still legally a man, she married her intersexed partner who when they were born were given surgery to classify her as legally female. The person who couldn't have the reassignment surgery had her legal gender changed back to female, and they were still married. The state recognized it still, and their company's insurance carrier recognized it.

What if they move to another state? Before states passed the unconstitutional "DOMA" amendments, it wouldn't have been a problem. Now that they have, it could be a real legal quagmire for them. Hope they continue to be able to stay where they are.

[Tyler Durden]

11. Oh they recognize them...AS MARRIAGE.

NOT as CIVIL UNIONS.

The words have POWER and as long as you segregate, they WILL be used to discriminate.

[asteroid2003QQ47]

7. It's show business.

They pretend to lead
and I pretend to care.

[Nederland]

9. What rights are you talking about?

I assume you referring to Gay Marriage but wanted to make sure.

[Tyler Durden]

12. ALL rights, but that's an excellent example.

MANY cities have statutes that allow discrimination in housing based on sexual preference.

What happens when it gets extended to Muslims? Or persons with Down's?

[Tyler Durden]

13. Still looking for some people brave enough to be HONEST..

You've all been "brave" enough to throw shit at each other here.

Anyone REALLY brave enough to step out of the monkey cage?

[rug]

14. Come on, Tyler, I'm still on hold with my fucking congressman.

[Tyler Durden]

15. As I would have expected here.

A couple of brave people, a few sarcastic ones, and a thousand cowards to scared to look at what we've become: MTV politics.

I don't know if I'll live long enough to see this self-absorbed "funhouse" that the nation has turned into improve or crumble. At this point, either would be a welcome change.