3 ms·

> it's easier to cherry-pick examples Prior to the Civil Rights Movement, the US was a highly segregated country mostly because of "cherry picked" examples fro

by victoro 13y ago

> it's easier to cherry-pick examples Prior to the Civil Rights Movement, the US was a highly segregated country mostly because of "cherry picked" examples from the deep south. Federal law exists in part to put the entire country on the same page with respect to basic liberties. Its not OK for me to have more freedom of speech in California than in Texas, so why should it be OK for an LGBT individual to have more basic human rights in one state than in another?

smsm42 13y ago
The current debate is exactly about the question if the basic human rights are violated or not. As soon as this would be resolved - I mean legally, having an opinion on that is not enough, for enforcement you need laws - if it would be resolved that some laws violate the basic human rights of LGBT people it would provide the basis for making them void. So far the court only decided that the federal laws banning same-sex marriage are violating the rights of the citizens. They did not decide that recognizing same-sex marriage is a basic human right though, and since the text of the Constitution is also mum on this question, it would require a separate court decision to have federal enforcement of such rights, if recognized. However not having such decision is in no way comparable with limitations of freedom of expression instituted in Russia. It's one thing to complain that the federal government does not force states to recognize same-sex marriage, especially if it doesn't even have a legal basis to do so right now, and another thing is to prosecute people for opening support centers for gay youth or for debating the topic of sexual relationships and freedoms in public.
tuxracer 13y ago
Because LGBT is not a federally protected class http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class
- auctiontheory 13y ago
  Begging the question.
  - timberlane 13y ago
    Plus one for first legitimate use of 'begging the question' I've seen in a decade.

by victoro 13y ago

smsm42 13y ago

The current debate is exactly about the question if the basic human rights are violated or not. As soon as this would be resolved - I mean legally, having an opinion on that is not enough, for enforcement you need laws - if it would be resolved that some laws violate the basic human rights of LGBT people it would provide the basis for making them void. So far the court only decided that the federal laws banning same-sex marriage are violating the rights of the citizens. They did not decide that recognizing same-sex marriage is a basic human right though, and since the text of the Constitution is also mum on this question, it would require a separate court decision to have federal enforcement of such rights, if recognized. However not having such decision is in no way comparable with limitations of freedom of expression instituted in Russia. It's one thing to complain that the federal government does not force states to recognize same-sex marriage, especially if it doesn't even have a legal basis to do so right now, and another thing is to prosecute people for opening support centers for gay youth or for debating the topic of sexual relationships and freedoms in public.

tuxracer 13y ago

Because LGBT is not a federally protected class http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class

auctiontheory 13y ago
Begging the question.
- timberlane 13y ago
  Plus one for first legitimate use of 'begging the question' I've seen in a decade.