Replies

Broad rules that protect the institution of marriage may fail the consitancy check in some cases.

That's completely unacceptable and immoral, as it is discrimination against taxpaying gay citizens.

No it's not. They are free to get married to a member of the opposite sex and enjoy all the benefits of marriage they want.

The 'discrimination' angle is a sham. Society shouldn't have to fund sexual hobbyists who are incapable of upholding their end of the marriage bargain.

We also discriminate against 10 year olds getting married, even with the consent of their taxpaying parents. It's discrimination based on age, and it may be a slippery slope, but I don't lose any sleep over it.

If this is the basis for the liberal / libertarian arguement, then we need an Amendment to settle this.

No it's not. They are free to get married to a member of the opposite sex and enjoy all the benefits of marriage they want The 'discrimination' angle is a sham. Society shouldn't have to fund sexual hobbyists who are incapable of upholding their end of the marriage bargain. We also discriminate against 10 year olds getting married, even with the consent of their taxpaying parents. It's discrimination based on age, and it may be a slippery slope, but I don't lose any sleep over it.

That argument is an absolute joke, and you know it. Gays are consenting adults, so let's stop all the bull about kids and pets, shall we? And since gays are not free to marry the person they love (such person being of the opposite sex by definition)they do not enjoy the same rights as heterosexuals under any rational definition.