Posted on 06/10/2016 12:25:41 AM PDT by Ray76
In his Second Inaugural Address, President Obama declared that “if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well.” Headlines and blogs around the country proclaim that the Supreme Court is ready to tackle the issue of “marriage equality.” If that’s the issue—“marriage equality”—then the correct outcome seems irresistible, doesn’t it? But is “marriage equality” really the issue?
To see how, think for a moment about the meaning—and the rhetorical uses and abuses—of equality and inequality. Do we treat blind people unequally by denying them drivers’ licenses when others are permitted to drive? Do we treat convicted felons unequally by putting them in jail when other people are free to move about as they wish? In the purely descriptive sense of different treatment, inequality is ubiquitous. Thank goodness. But we have something different in mind, obviously, when we talk about equality and inequality in political contexts.
Here, as Aristotle long ago observed and as Michigan law professor Peter Westen explained some years ago in a much-discussed article in the Harvard Law Review, equality has a more normative sense. It means that like cases should be treated alike.
So when people disagree about legal or political issues, they aren’t arguing for and against equality. Instead, they are disagreeing about whether two cases, or two classes of people, actually are alike for the purposes of whatever is being discussed.
So the real disagreement is not about equality, but rather about what marriage is, or what it should be thought to include.
(Excerpt) Read more at thepublicdiscourse.com ...
People are still in shock and angry over the 2015 Obergefell decision on marriage and it will be an issue that will still resonate those feelings with voters this November.
If Trump highlights the gay marriage decision and promises to appoint Justices that will overturn Obergefell, Trump will win by a large margin.
Ever hear of Carrie Prejean?
Yeah, a Miss America who spoke out on pro family issues.
It’s illicit.
We have to force the narrative back to state-recognized marriage as a matter of reproduction.
There’s an objective difference with hetero unions: based on just those literal two bits of info (male and female) we know that the pairing will tend to procreate. Any other combination won’t, ever.
They already had marriage equality. Homosexuals could marry under the same criteria as heterosexuals. Neither could marry a member of the same sex.
And that was after she was ASKED.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.