WorldWatcher
Gold Member
An honest answer is that civil marriage is available to anyone marrying the opposite gender regardless of their sexual orientation.Thanks for supporting my point.
Female is a gender. No female is barred from marrying any male she wants, with some exceptions.
Male is a gender. No male is barred from marrying any female he wants, with some exceptions.
There is no gender discrimination. There is no discrimination at all.
The point you appear to be trying to make, badly, is that the discrimination must be evaluated based on the individual. That is not the case. Colored people were allowed to marry other people, with some exceptions. Using your logic the SCOTUS would have found no discrimination occurred because colored people were allowed to marry
That logic failed then also.
So, from the following list please identify the characteristic which differentiates legally being able to Civilly Marriage:
Heterosexual Man + Heterosexual Woman = Legal
Heterosexual Man + Homosexual Woman = Legal
Homosexual Man + Heterosexual Woman = Legal
Homosexual Man + Homosexual Woman = Legal
Heterosexual Man + Heterosexual Man = Illegal
Heterosexual Man + Homosexual Man = Illegal
Homosexual Man + Homosexual Man = Illegal
Heterosexual Woman + Heterosexual Woman = Illegal
Heterosexual Woman + Homosexual Woman = Illegal
Homosexual Woman + Homosexual Woman = Illegal
An honest answer is not hard to do.
[
So rights are evaluated on the individual?
That was proven wrong in Loving v. Virginia, colored people could marry as the State argued. Didn't fly, the law was struck down because of it's treatment of the couple.
Your statement that Civil Marriage is available only to members of the opposite sex (a biological condition) is structured the same as the States argument that colored people could marry in their own race (a biological condition).
I agree, technically speaking the laws are not written based on sexual orientation - however they are restrictive based on gender.
Thanks for again proving there is no discrimination based on sexual preference.
I didn't say it was, technically speaking the discriminating characteristic is gender.
Boy you guys are really failing badly here. Your arguments seem to come down to: 1) We will overcome as soon as enough unelected judges are pressured into seeing it our way, or 2) it is just like civil rights all over again.
Both are failures. The first because it is empowers a judicial tyranny, which is not what the country was founded on.
Let's review what I actually said that you snipped out:
The trend is toward equal recognition of Same-sex Civil Marriages, a trend likely to continue as the younger generation which does not hold the same bias as ours become more politically influential.
In 2000 and 2004 votes denying equal treatment of Same-sex Civil Marriage passed with 23%-76% margins of victory. The last two votes (CA Prop 8 and MA Question 1) were down to the point where a 2-3% shift in the vote would have changed the outcome and polls show a continued trend toward more acceptance. As a matter of fact the first successful "win" at the polls for equal treatment of same-sex couples, in terms of Civil Marriage, may happen this year in either Washington or Maine.
I don't see judges mentioned at all.
Also, there are 8 legal entities where Same-Sex Civil Marriage has been legalized (Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, Washington and Washington, D.C.). 62.5% of those entities approved Same-sex Civil Marriage as a function of Legislative action with no court order. If you believe gains in Same-sex Civil Marriage equality were achieve only by judical action...
........... You are wrong.
Second, because gays are not blacks and the parallels are simply not there.
Discrimination based on a biological condition has very close parallels, whether it be gender or race the similarities are there.
>>>>