Per the court’s (incorrect) equal-protection logic:
1. Can the state license ANY activity? (Hunting, fishing, practicing law, practicing medicine, practicing hair cutting, practicing family counseling, practicing psychiatric care, etc.)
2. Isn’t the state’s licensing of marriage inherently unconstitutional, as the license assumes applicants want to get married to each other, and establishes criteria which the applicants must meet, thereby “creating” a class of individuals who don’t want to get married to each other and do not meet the required criteria (and therefore, presumably, suffer from unconstitutional discrimination on equal-protection grounds)?
Example: The state licenses rabbit hunting with slingshots in March, for those who desire to hunt rabbits, and are willing and able to do so with slingshots in the month of March. Per the court’s reasoning, this state licensing is unconstitutional, as it (supposedly) excludes those persons who desire to hunt squirrels with shotguns in April. And per the court’s reasoning, the state license to hunt rabbits with slingshots in March SHOULD ALSO ALLOW squirrel hunting with shotguns in April (or any other animal with any other weapon in any other month).
Example: The state licenses 17 year-olds who pass a written test and a driving test to drive Volkswagons on the streets and highways. Per the court’s reasoning, this excludes those persons who’d prefer to drive Volkswagons on the city sidewalks, and those who’d prefer to drive Mopeds on the interstate, and those who’d prefer to do so at age 15, and those who’d prefer to take no test. Per the court’s reasoning, the driving license should be immediately extended to those who prefer to drive on sidewalks and those who prefer to drive tricycles on the interstate.
Example: The state licenses the practice of hair-cutting. Those who want to be beauticians happily apply for this license, pass some sort of test, and receive their hair-cutting license. This discriminates, of course, against those who desire the hair-cutting license to allow them to practice clinical psychiatry. The courts who claim that the marriage license allowing a single man to marry a single woman discriminates (somehow) against a lesbian woman who desires to marry another lesbian woman do inherently, by their decision and reasoning, extend the license of hair-cutting to those who want to practice psychiatry.
Bottom line: Bans on gay marriage are not equal-protection issues. Gay persons have EXACTLY the same rights to marriage, or to hunt, or to fish, or to become a practicing psychiatrists, as heterosexuals, or duck hunters, or lawyers, or fishermen, or fifteen year old teenagers. A gay man is free to marry a lesbian woman. A gay man is free to marry a heterosexual woman. A lesbian woman is free to marry a heterosexual man. A lesbian woman is free to marry a gay man. Heck, a lesbian man is free to marry a gay woman, or even a heterosexual psychiatrist. Their rights are equivalent.
If we want to extend the marriage license to marriages where a male marries a male, we can do so, but we can’t be compelled to do so for equal-protection reasons.
You thoughts are similar to mine. This is not an equal protection issue because these lesbians are free to marry men the same as the hetero women are free to marry men. But they want to marry women which as does not make them equal because the heteros don’t want to marry women. Perhaps government should stay the f$&@ out of the marriage business.
It’s a good argument you have there - the hard part would be getting the court to accept it.