Equal protection under the law should not extend to sexual orientation... I can understand equal protection under the law based on race, color, creed, age, and gender, but to think there should be equal rights based on sexual orientation is patently absurd and I believe a misinterpretation of the Constitution.
13 comments
Put sexual orientation in the "creed" category.
I think they had a "don't ask, don't tell" policy back then....
It's "patently" absurd?
Patently can mean 'unmistakably', in which case why do so many disagree with you? It can also mean 'evidently', in which case where's your evidence? Or it can mean 'openly', which suggests that gay people are admitting they shouldn't have equal rights: that's patently absurd.
Don't lie.
Hi. I am slightly queer -- about a 2 or a weak 3 on the Kinsey scale. For the most part I prefer women, but I was with a guy once, and though I didn't get much into it, I am not averse to doing it again, should I ever find one I'm actually attracted to (something very, very rare indeed, but it has happened). I'm you fundies' worst nightmare regarding sexual orientation, because I'm not 100% either way, and I'm not the least bit ashamed about it.
So what's your solution? Shall we go with the "one drop of gay" solution, or shall we have a sliding scale where I get some rights but not all of them, but more than the full-blown gays? And what about women, a sizeable number of whom are all over the Kinsey scale without being easily pinned down? Because I know one of us is spouting absurdities, and I can get off to gay or straight porn as I wish, so I don't think it's me.
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.
Constitution BITCH
Equal protection under the law should not extend to race... I can understand equal protection under the law based on sexual orientation, creed, age, and gender, but to think there should be equal rights based on race is patently absurd and I believe a misinterpretation of the Constitution.
Have you a time machine? This has all been said before about race and gender and country of origin and religion. We've always tried to work toward the ideal of EXPANDING rights for others, but now (2017) we have people trying to remove rights from non-Christians, from women, and from same-sex couples, and trying to enact laws for that purpose. We worked hard for those rights; I didn't know how fragile they would be under Trump.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.