Opinion of LGBT Republicans

[Kingpoleon]

There are obviously FFs and HPs like in any community, but I'm goonna vote FF because I know two who are FFs (Sunrise and DavidB., like Cath mentioned), and because on principle, I start with a favourable view of LGBTQ people until they prove me otherwise

They're referring to Milo Yiannopoulos.

I used to be a Republican, and I am G, so I know where most of LGBT Republicans are coming from. I was in Log Cabin Republicans, and been to three of their national conventions.

I wish LGBT Republicans would stop hoping for judicial activism, i.e., decisions like Lawrence v. Texas, U.S. v. Windsor,, and Obergefell v. Hodges.

I suppose you'd also wish minorities in the 1950s and 1960s wouldn't support "judicial activism" for interracial marriage? Not normally completely comparable, but for a legal standpoint, it can apply.

[Kingpoleon]

They're referring to Milo Yiannopoulos.

I used to be a Republican, and I am G, so I know where most of LGBT Republicans are coming from. I was in Log Cabin Republicans, and been to three of their national conventions.

I wish LGBT Republicans would stop hoping for judicial activism, i.e., decisions like Lawrence v. Texas, U.S. v. Windsor,, and Obergefell v. Hodges.

I suppose you'd also wish minorities in the 1950s and 1960s wouldn't support "judicial activism" for interracial marriage? Not normally completely comparable, but for a legal standpoint, it can apply.

That depends on what kind of minority you're talking about.
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to prohibit state government racial discrimination; the principle was to be about racial equality. Therefore I approve of Supreme Court decisions such as Brown v. Board of Education and Loving v. Virginia. I have read the [/I]Loving[/I] opinion by Chief Justice Warren and I approve of Section 1 of the opinion -- which emphasized the racial meaning of the Equal Protection Clause -- but I disapprove of the unnecessary Section 2 of the opinion, which claimed that marriage is a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause. I disapprove of extending the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause beyond racial equality. Aliens are a kind of "minority" too, and I disapprove of treating the Equal Protection Clause as if aliens have all the same rights as citizens. I disapprove of the line of decisions that struck down laws which discriminated against illegitimate children. I disapprove of the gay-rights decisions that I mentioned above.
The Equal Protection Clause has been the basis of dozens upon dozens of wrong decisions, because the only kind of discrimination that the people who adopted the 14th Amendment intended to ban was racial discrimination.

BTW, in my signature, I am suggesting a rewrite of the 14th Amendment in order to make the Equal Protection Clause (and other clauses in the 14th) have a clearer, narrower, more specific meaning. The proposal I have drafted includes bans on discrimination based on race, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, and disability status.

So, with your new amendment rewrite, would it be unlawful to discriminate based on religion or college choice(say, a black college)? You can't cover everything in a law, so the interpretation and extension thereof is, at times, necessary.

Furthermore, if marriage is not a fundamental right for all(under the Due Process Clause, by any other statute, law, etc., or by simple interpretation) as Section 2 of the rendered decision states, then it is not a fundamental right for racial minorities, rendering Section 1 of the rendered decision null and void. And if it is a fundamental right for all, then the precedent thereof allows for a clear basis for Obergefell v. Hodges.

[Kingpoleon]

They're referring to Milo Yiannopoulos.

I used to be a Republican, and I am G, so I know where most of LGBT Republicans are coming from. I was in Log Cabin Republicans, and been to three of their national conventions.

I wish LGBT Republicans would stop hoping for judicial activism, i.e., decisions like Lawrence v. Texas, U.S. v. Windsor,, and Obergefell v. Hodges.

I suppose you'd also wish minorities in the 1950s and 1960s wouldn't support "judicial activism" for interracial marriage? Not normally completely comparable, but for a legal standpoint, it can apply.

That depends on what kind of minority you're talking about.
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to prohibit state government racial discrimination; the principle was to be about racial equality. Therefore I approve of Supreme Court decisions such as Brown v. Board of Education and Loving v. Virginia. I have read the [/I]Loving[/I] opinion by Chief Justice Warren and I approve of Section 1 of the opinion -- which emphasized the racial meaning of the Equal Protection Clause -- but I disapprove of the unnecessary Section 2 of the opinion, which claimed that marriage is a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause. I disapprove of extending the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause beyond racial equality. Aliens are a kind of "minority" too, and I disapprove of treating the Equal Protection Clause as if aliens have all the same rights as citizens. I disapprove of the line of decisions that struck down laws which discriminated against illegitimate children. I disapprove of the gay-rights decisions that I mentioned above.
The Equal Protection Clause has been the basis of dozens upon dozens of wrong decisions, because the only kind of discrimination that the people who adopted the 14th Amendment intended to ban was racial discrimination.

BTW, in my signature, I am suggesting a rewrite of the 14th Amendment in order to make the Equal Protection Clause (and other clauses in the 14th) have a clearer, narrower, more specific meaning. The proposal I have drafted includes bans on discrimination based on race, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, and disability status.

So, with your new amendment rewrite, would it be unlawful to discriminate based on religion or college choice(say, a black college)? You can't cover everything in a law, so the interpretation and extension thereof is, at times, necessary.

Furthermore, if marriage is not a fundamental right for all(under the Due Process Clause, by any other statute, law, etc., or by simple interpretation) as Section 2 of the rendered decision states, then it is not a fundamental right for racial minorities, rendering Section 1 of the rendered decision null and void. And if it is a fundamental right for all, then the precedent thereof allows for a clear basis for Obergefell v. Hodges.

Yes, religious discrimination by government would still be unconstitutional, because I am keeping the premise that enumerated rights from amendments 1-8 still have to be enforced against the states. No, discrimination based on choice of college education would not be unconstitutional.

You are saying that Section 2 of Lovingwas necessary, because without Section 2 (Due Process), Section 1 was "null and void." I disagree. Is driving a car with a driver's license a "fundamental right?" The answer should be no. But if a state has a law that only white people can get driver's licenses and no racial minorities are allowed to get them, then the Equal Protection Clause is being violated. There does not have to be a "fundamental right" to be involved in order to find that the Equal Protection Clause has been violated.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

The right of marriage is part of life, a legal liberty, and directly a pursuit of happiness. And, whereas all men are created equal, to deny anyone that regularly considered a part of life, in this case marriage, or in your example a driver's license, to discriminate amongst equals is contrary to that beginning phrase in the beginning of our country.