Discrimination is discrimination. I think the "ban gay marriage" voters are going to be disappointed.
Religion aside, I think it takes a tortured reading of the federal constitution to permit a same sex marriage ban. I don't see any difference between this issue or the racial civil rights issue.
1. Prior to the 13th and 14th amendments, the U.S. Constitution was NOT based upon the threefold promise of the French Revolution (Liberté, Fraternité, Egalité).
2. The passage of the 13th and 14th amendments does not give the government license to "force" the various races to get along. Even now, I take issue with the notion that the federal government has the right to tell a business that it cannot discriminate against employees on the basis of race. Mind you, I would never refuse to hire a person simply because he was black, but I have a serious problem with the federal government meddling in race relations.
3. The analogy that "gay" is to "straight" as "black" is to "white" is completely flawed, because there is no evidence or historical precedent to indicate that a person is, so to speak, ever "born homosexual." Sure, there have always been people (and animals) who desired to copulate with members of the same sex, but prior to the 19th and 20th centuries, no one ever suggested that the desire to copulate anally might be written into a person's genetic code as an integral part of his being.
4. I do not believe a constitutional ban on same-sex "marriages" is the best way to stop them from happening--if for no other reason than the fact that it simply won't pass. The only viable, long-term strategy should be to end judicial activism.
5. Since I am engaging in a controversy regarding gender/sex, I feel compelled to mention that on no account will I apologize for my usage of the masculine for generic singular pronouns. That has been the accepted usage in many languages--English included--for centuries, until feminists came along and spewed forth ridiculous theories that not only degrade women (and men) but fly in the face of most genetic and historical evidence.
"Religion aside, I think it takes a tortured reading of the federal constitution to permit a same sex marriage ban."
By your line of argument, why stop mature men/women from having sex with pre-pubescent boys/girls?
How so? Marriage is an institution that implicitly requires the union of a male and a female. That is what marriage is. Just because a person says they are a polar bear, doesn't make them one. And the constitution does not require the federal government or any state to regard them as one. There is no constitutional requirement to allow anyone to redefine the meaning of established institutions.
Religion aside, I think it takes a tortured reading of the federal constitution to permit a same sex marriage ban. I don't see any difference between this issue or the racial civil rights issue.
People who want to enter into polygamous marriages are also discriminated against, and as you said, discrimination is discrimination. According to what the federal constitution says, do you think the ban on polygamous marriages should continue or has the time come to legalize polygamous marriages and end the discrimination?
Then you're both woefully ignorant of constitutional law. This doesn't mean that there aren't SC justices who would strike down the gay marriage bans for that very reason. These are activist judges, hell-bent on making law rather than interpreting law - the mind-set that resulted in abortion (the murder of a human being, remember) being decriminalized under Roe v. Wade. The architects of the Constitution have got to be spinning in their graves because of the way this noble document has been perverted. I dare say, not one of the signers would have put pen to that paper if it had actually, literally, proclaimed that women would be free to kill their babies in-utero, or protect homosexuals from social stigma.
I'm a heterosexual male.
Do I have a right to marry my mother? After all, we love each other. - NO.
Do I have a right to marry any of my sisters? After all, we love each other. - NO.
Do I have a right to marry either of my daughters? After all, we love each other. - NO.
We already accept many restrictions on who may marry. Marriage is not a right.
You get the Cynthia Tucker award for Moral Obtuseness.
And where will that slippery slope lead us? One can marry one's sister/brother/cousin? Three people in a marriage? One can marry one's farm animals?
Same sex marriage is bad enough, after that it is but a small step into the abyss.
Not allowing pedophiles to adopt is discrimination.
Not allowing people into domestic violence to adopt is discrimination.
Not allowing necrophiles to adopt is discrimination.
Not allowing sadists and masochists to adopt is discrimination.
Not allowing polygamists to adopt is discrimination.
Not allowing the homeless to adopt is discrimination.
Need I go on ?
Religion aside, I think it takes a tortured reading of the federal constitution to permit a same sex marriage ban. I don't see any difference between this issue or the racial civil rights issue.
Congrats zarf! You fell for the mental re-programming of the homosexual lobby.
Discrimination: is a word whose political redefinition originated in the civil rights movement. In normal usage, discrimination is synonymous with discernment, but as used in a civil rights context it means irrational bias against a person. "Irrational" is the hidden qualifier in the term that distinguishes appropriate discernment from prejudice.
In an enlightened society there can be no rational basis for discrimination on criteria such as race, skin color or ethnicity. However, as with multi-culturalism, the introduction of morally significant criteria changes the analysis of discrimination.
Discrimination against harmful conduct is entirely rational, and in many cases necessary.
Discrimination is now synonymous with racial prejudice in the public mind. The "gay" movement has exploited this association to legitimize its own claims by adding itself to the list of minorities in anti-discrimination statutes.
Moral discrimination is "rational" discrimination.
And without it there would be only chaos.
As far as the racial/homosexual statement, show me ONE person who chose to change their race and I will agree with you on your statement.