California and Mob Rule

[MrFun]

The discrimination in that definition is that it prevents a gay man from marrying another gay man or a lesbian from marrying another lesbian.

Thus, gay men and lesbians are deprived of basic right to marry another mentally competent, consenting adult of their choice.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Marriage is between a white man and a white woman or between a black man and a black woman.

Obvious discrimination.

Marriage is between a man and a woman.

Where is the discrimination?

JM

Oy... I can't believe you are repeating this ridiculously dumb argument.

Marriage is between a straight man and a straight woman, but not between a gay man and a gay man or a gay woman and a gay woman. Obvious discrimination.

[MrFun]

If JM wants to go into the same corner with BK, there's no stopping him, Imran.

[KrazyHorse]

Marriage is between a white man and a white woman or between a black man and a black woman.

Obvious discrimination.

Marriage is between a man and a woman.

Where is the discrimination?

JM

Are you honestly this dumb?

[KrazyHorse]

Can you please explain to us where you get the fact that anti-miscegenation is "obvious" discrimination while anti-gay marriage is not?

In both cases the discrimination is as follows: you have two individuals who want to enter into the civil status of marriage with each other. The law forbids it based on, in one case, race, and in the other, gender.

[Drake Tungsten]

Gender and race aren't equivalent categories in the case of marriage for a variety of reasons.

[KrazyHorse]

While you might believe that requiring opposite gender in marriage is justifiable discrimination (particularly, discrimination that the state can demonstrate an overriding reason for) that is not equivalent to stating that one is obviously discrimination and the other is not.

[Drake Tungsten]

It's not obviously discrimination if the institution has always been limited to opposite gender couples, for reasons inextricably linked with the social purpose (until very recently) of the institution.

[MrFun]

The social purpose being a stable means of reproduction and thus future survival of humans?

If that is what you mean by social purpose, I don't see how extending equal marriage rights to ten percent of population will prevent rest of ninety percent of population from marrying, much less from reproducing.

On another note, keep in mind that others on other different issues have used the, "it's always been this way, so it must be right" argument. In justifying slavery, would be one example.

[KrazyHorse]

It's not obviously discrimination if the institution has always been limited to opposite gender couples, for reasons inextricably linked with the social purpose (until very recently) of the institution.

Just because something has historical precedent and what you may believe to be a valid reason does not make it not discrimination.

While anti-miscegenation laws were not really the norm prior to the 19th century in the US South, what if they had been? What if you managed to dredge up the scientific research of the time demonstrating that mixed-race babies had lower intelligence than either all-white or all-black babies? Wouldn't the law still have been discriminatory?

[Ben Kenobi]

The discrimination in that definition is that it prevents a gay man from marrying another gay man or a lesbian from marrying another lesbian.

Thus, gay men and lesbians are deprived of basic right to marry another mentally competent, consenting adult of their choice.

I don't have that right either. I can't marry you regardless of my sexual orientation. What you are asking for are special rights, not equal protection, much in the same way someone who is in a wheelchair asks for a ramp.

The issue isn't the 'equal protection of the law', but rather, the amelioration of what you consider to be unfair treatment.

This is why the equal protection law falls flat. The law doesn't distinguish between a gay and a straight husband one iota.

[Ben Kenobi]

Can you please explain to us where you get the fact that anti-miscegenation is "obvious" discrimination while anti-gay marriage is not?

WRT to equal protection, here's the deal. Anti-miscegenation laws return different results for a white man and a black man marrying the same woman. The white man is permitted to marry, the black man is not permitted to marry. One may argue that while anti-miscegenation laws are reciprocal, that the fact they return different results violates equal protection, as different results are assumed to be discriminatory.

This is not true of the current marriage law. If a gay or a straight man wishes to marry the same women, the law returns the exact same result, they are both permitted to marry. If a gay or a straight woman wishes to marry the same man, it returns the same result, they are both permitted to marry. Therefore, the law does not discriminate against gay men or women, and the law as stated does not violate equal protection because it returns the same results regardless of the plaintiff.

What gay marriage proponents are asking for is a special right, which does not currently exist. Therefore, equal protection is a dead end, because it can say nothing about granting special rights to people at all.

[Ben Kenobi]

The social purpose being a stable means of reproduction and thus future survival of humans?

Actually, Reynolds makes a different argument. It states for the preservation of order. We have seen up here in recent years why that statement has been made. We are seeing cases for polygamy, one of which is winding through the courts as we speak.

The reason why the government has, until now, held firm on the definition, is that they realised they could not simply draw the line here.

Your argument would apply equally to polygamists who want the ability to marry as many people as they would like, for those who wish to do arranged and child marriages, etc, etc, etc. They are minorities, therefore what's the harm in allowing them to marry as they choose?

On another note, keep in mind that others on other different issues have used the, "it's always been this way, so it must be right" argument. In justifying slavery, would be one example.

Are you arguing that your current situation is similar to slavery?

[Theben]

Your argument would apply equally to polygamists who want the ability to marry as many people as they would like, for those who wish to do arranged and child marriages, etc, etc, etc. They are minorities, therefore what's the harm in allowing them to marry as they choose?

For myself I don't have a problem with polygamy per se, but there's some question of such arrangements structurally allowing equal power being shared amongst the wedded.

Are you arguing that your current situation is similar to slavery?

Are you aware that your statement is a textbook example of setting up a strawman?

[DinoDoc]

For myself I don't have a problem with polygamy per se, but there's some question of such arrangements structurally allowing equal power being shared amongst the wedded.

So?