By the way, even traditional marriage is not a right provided by the contract, as it is granted by a license provided by the state to parties which meed certain conditions. Licenses are, by definition, NOT rights granted by any constitution. One must agree to certain conditions specified by the state to, say, hunt, fish, cut hair, practice psychiatry, perform brain surgery, drive 18 wheelers, and so on.
On the other hand, contract-making by two or more individuals IS a right provided by the U.S. Constitution, by virtue of the Constitution’s fundamental premise that humans should have liberty. Homosexuals enjoy this basic right in every U.S. state. Twenty-seven homosexuals of various genders can freely contract amongst themselves to love, cherish, share wealth, share property, hold hands, cook dinner, run the vacuum, and save old photographs together in contractual unison.
What these 27 homosexuals cannot do is obligate third parities to act and behave in certain ways specified by the contract which they do not join. THIS IS THE DISTINCTION OF CIVIL / STATE MARRIAGE: IT IS A CONTRACT WHICH, UNIQUELY, OBLIGATES THIRD PARTIES TO BEHAVE IN CERTAIN WAYS.
Taking a step back and viewing the situation, one notes that ALL forms of state licensing violate equal protection principles, as ALL forms of licensing deny some while allowing others to do a thing. Is the state therefore obliged to engage in no licensing? If you believe absolutely in equal protection, you must also hold that the state can perform no licensing. (I don’t know how to unwrap this, btw.)
By the way... no U.S. state law banning same-sex marriage discriminates against homosexuals. Homosexuals have EXACTLY the same right to marriage as heterosexuals, red-heads, the left-handed, classical music enthusiasts, and persons who prefer driving on the left and hunting ducks during rabbit season. Homosexuals are banned from driving on sidewalks in the same manners as those who “prefer” to drive on sidewalks are banned from driving on sidewalks.
(typo)
People seem to overlook the fact that homosexuals, just like everyone else, have ALWAYS been able to enter into contractual partnerships that are binding to all parties.
Every impediment they list is nothing more than a red herring. Two people DO NOT need to be married to own property together. A person can leave their estate to ANYONE they want; as far as estate taxes go, these should be abolished for everyone. I'm not aware of a hospital ANYWHERE that prohibits homosexuals from visiting each other; but, if there is a hospital that does this, I agree that this policy should be changed. I believe that many jails and prisons do prohibit visits by non-relatives and I agree that provisions should probably be made for homosexual couples.
Well said.
Been saying the same thing.
How can homosexuals and Olson argue that they are discriminated against when in fact they have exactly the same rights as us. We can only marry the opposite sex with one other person just like them. What they want is special rights and it’s high time judges understood this and spoke up in court.
Exactly right about the Constitution too. No where does it state about marriage and not even the most radical member of the homostapo can tell anyone surely that the 14th amendment when passed would allow them to change what marriage is.