Personally it is not a behavior I would choose, nor want for my children, but I can see little difference between homosexual and heterosexual relationships aside from the genders involved and species propagation, and after all most pedophiles are heterosexual
The issue of “gay rights” seems to have become one of civil rights, and in the US we have this little thing, that is some times inconvenient, called the constitution, and contained in it is a little thing known as the XIV amendment, inside of that is another little thing, often referred to as the equal protection clause.
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.
As the XIV amendment has been expanded to become the cornerstone of almost all civil rights, I think eventually the Supremes will be required to weigh in on issues of “gay rights”.
This should be interesting, considering many frown upon relying upon foreign law. What could be more foreign than a prohibition written down 3500 years ago by a group of people from a small Middle Eastern country?
I can hardly wait for a strict constructionist interpretation, should be a hoot, perhaps Justice Thomas can write the decision.
The last Supreme Court case dealing with sexual preference was Romer v. Evans, in 1996, where the Supreme Court reviewed a Colorado state constitutional amendment that prohibited any branch of the state or local governments from taking action designed to protect the status of persons based on their "homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation."
The immediate effect of the amendment, known popularly as "Amendment 2," was to repeal all existing statutes, regulations, ordinances, and governmental policies that barred discrimination based on sexual preference. Under Amendment 2, state officials and private entities would have been permitted to discriminate against gays and lesbians in a number of areas, including insurance, employment, housing, and welfare services.
The state of Colorado defended Amendment 2 by arguing that it did nothing more than place homosexuals on a level playing field with all other state residents. The amendment, Colorado submitted, simply denied gays and lesbians any "special rights."
The Court disagreed, holding that Amendment 2 violated the Equal Protection Clause because it "identifies persons by a single trait and then denies them protection across the board," which is something "unprecedented in our Jurisprudence."
Writing for a six-person majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy said:
"Equal Protection of the laws is not achieved through indiscriminate imposition of inequalities." The associate justice said that "respect for this principle" demonstrates "why laws singling out a certain class of citizens for disfavored legal status or general hardships are rare." Amendment 2 is unconstitutional, Kennedy concluded, because any law that generally makes it "more difficult for one group of citizens than all others to seek aid from the government is itself a denial of equal protection of the laws in the most literal sense."
Life is no joke but funny things happen
jon
