Replies

Equal protection under the law. Someone with your proclaimed intellect shouldn't be foundering around like this. I said I'd take the Constitution's equal protection applying to all citizens as being 'moral.' Denying the benefits of legalized unions between adults based on their violation of religious dogma (commandment morality) violates constitutional 'morality.'

Cruse, equal protection demands that all are treated equally. Anybody can get married as long as you marry a member of the opposite sex. A homosexual man can marry a homosexual woman, that is not proscribed.

What you want is special rights for a group of people. Which is fine but it is not based in equal protection or the Constitution. Of course once you extend "marriage" to same sex homosexuals there is no rational basis for keeping any two or more people from entering into "marriage" be it platonically or sexually under your Constitutional interpretation.

You simply support Lawrence v Texas and Goodridge because it accords with your ideology, there is no basis in the US Constitution or the Mass Constitution for either opinion of those courts. But that won't stop you from using the Constitution as toilet paper as long as your moral code is serviced. You're position is the one taken by those who support an overly strong central government ruled by the elite few in robes.

The truth? You can't take the truth! The truth is Cruse, you're the statist. :-}

You are the one foundering. You admitted that you:
"denounced laws based on someone's notion of morality."

You declared it wrong to legislate on the basis of morality, then
you declared your own moral statements as a basis for laws!

There is a word for this: HYPOCRISY.

physician, heal thyself! ... You need to understand your own logical contradiction to understand the reason the author of the posted article has an excellent point.

"I said I'd take the Constitution's equal protection applying to all citizens as being 'moral.'"

In the constitution, equal protection is given "under the law". To presume no distinctions in law are valid is bad 14th amendment reading and impossible law. the basis of the law is morality (again) and it by definition creates categories. A helmet law for motorcyclists doesnt discriminate against motorcyclists per se. likewise granting status to men and women who wish to marry does NOT discriminate against those who dont wish to join into those responsibilities. There are perfectly rational reasons to maintain the traditional family as a structure that is deserving of a greater amount of protection and consideration than other unions based on homosexual relations etc. thus there is not a whit of denial of equal protection in codifying the tradition definition of marriage ie between 1 man and 1 woman into law.

see the Goodrich dissent that totally skewered the phony grandstanding of the majority opinion on this. The Mass supreme court ruled CONTRARY to the direct words of the Mass constitution, Mass. law, and legal logic.

To use equal protection as a blanket bar is to claim that we have no right to stop incest polygamy or ANY set of relations. It's absurd. The majority ruling was bad law and bad logic.

" Denying the benefits of legalized unions between adults based on their violation of religious dogma (commandment morality) violates constitutional 'morality.'"

bad thinking again. Why is any morality an invalid basis of a law? There is NO SUCH CONSTITUTIONAL BAR. Again, morality is the 1 key ingredient to all laws. The only reason to oppose such a basis as presumptively invalid is anti-religious prejudice. That itself violates your own statement!