Replies

"I am sick and tired of homophobic demagogues inflaming anti-gay passions while masquerading as concerned Christian marriage advocates," Hinkley said. "From my perspective, the debate needs to be reframed so that people understand it's about rights."

And I'm sick and tired of heterophobic demagogues inflaming homosexual passions while masquerading as concerned for civil rights. From my perspective, the debate needs to be reframed so that people understand it's about defining marriage as we have for millenia for the good of society.

You have a valid point of view, but it holds no legal water.

Under current marriage law, men and women are treated as separate-but-equal. Men have one right that women do not have (the right to marry women), and women have a right that men do not have (the right to marry men). When the issue comes before the court, it will be an argument of gender discrimination. The question of unequal treatment of the genders here is indisputable. I've used this argument here before, and no one has denied that yes, men and women are treated differently with this policy.

I can hear it now..
"But men and women are biologically different."
"But it's not natural."
"But but marriage has always been this way."
"But what about the children?"
"But the sanctity of marriage must be protected!"
"But.. Bowers v Hardwick..."

You can "but.." all you want. None of these exceptions to Equal Protection are written into the Constitution. Any judges claiming that these excuses outweigh the right to Equal Protection are guilty of judicial activism, and good conservatives only enforce laws that are actually on the books, right? Equal Protection is on the books; these objections to equal marriage policy are not.
I've read the Constitution up-and-down many many times, and there is no such exception to the Equal Protection Clause for the case of the genders in the legal institution of marriage.

There is hope for you though. One group, the Alliance for Marriage, has realized the legal reality of this separate-but-equal policy. They're currently working to amend the Constitution such that only an opposite-sex couple can be legally married. If you wish for this to be the case, I strongly suggest you support them. Time is ticking, and tommorrow's political and media leaders will be even more pro-gay than ever.

Call me liberal, call me any epithet you want, point-out that I registered here today, spew lofty rehtoric about the decline of morals, etc.. it sounds pretty and inspiring, but it's no substitute for live ammunition in court. It still doesn't change the validity of my argument.

And fear not. When gay marriage is legalized, you will still retain the right to teach your children that homosexuality is wrong. You will also retain the right to not practice homosexuality, the right to voice moral & political opposition to homosexuality, the right to lobby for anti-homosexual rights laws, the right to have your church condemn and/or not recognize same-gender marriages, etc. None of your constitutional rights will disappear, and you will still have the comfort of knowing that regardless of what laws we pass here, sodomites will burn in hell.

Have a nice Sunday.

"The Constitution neither knows nor tolerates classes among its citizens." -Romer v Evans, Justice Kennedy, 1996