That is an interesting take. I heard someone discussing it and said that Justice Roberts could join the gay marriage advocates by saying that denying two men or two women to marry each other would be “illegal due to laws against sex discrimination.”
To sanction for gay marriage in a religious way by
the government IS an establishment of religion and
unconstitutional on it’s face.
Another wedge driven into the constitution by the liberal
statists who find it an impediment to their agenda.
Using that argument, any combination or number of people or animals or objects could declare they were discriminated against. There would be no limit to anything called a wedding.
He may do that and Kennedy may find his “ right to dignity” compelling enough once again to ignore the fact that the Constitution and the 14th Amendment are silent on same sex marriage. That is the price we pay for allowing 9 human beings to be our lords and masters.
In the name of tolerance, gays will eliminate freedom of speech, freedom of belief beyond a dark corner of one’s house and freedom of association from public.
That is reason enough to say “no!”
To which somoene should ask him if allowing males, that present as males, into the same restrooms his wife and daughters use would also be sex discrimination.
Homo marriage is by definition sex discrimination itself given that it always excludes one of the sexes.
Anyway, this is a very lame argument that is not worthy of the chief justice. It would be like saying prostate cancer research, treatment etc. is illegitimate because it does not help women. Human DNA and the whole continuation of humans into the future is solidly and 100% a product of heterosexuality. If that is discrimination then it is in the sense of natural selection. It is what it is.
Soem things just are. It is only discrimination in the sense that truth discriminates against error.