[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

Ahh. But you're wrong. Gay's can get married.

Just not with the people that they like. Yes, I know that loveless "marriages" (such as the "arranged" or "political" variety) has long and "glorious" history, but I'll be courageous and assume that most consider the increased importance of love in marriage to be an improvement on the term despite its uprise being correlated to a higher rate of divorce...

But there are rules.

Defined by whom. Were they right to begin with?

You have to marry someone from the opposite sex.

Justify this. And don't throw out "natural law". It sounds cool but what people call "natural law" is actually a very human creation. The fact they are hardly as natural as some like to think can be seen from our past and from certain parts of the world that we might call "barbaric".
If something is a real natural law, you don't have to worry about anyone violating it. They just won't be able to do so. For example, real natural law insists that when you jump out of a building, you fall. Further, It is too big to really care about humans or gays.

If it makes you feel any better, I don't have the right to marry another man myself.

That's cold comfort considering that you don't have an interest. It is easy to support a restriction of a freedom that you don't want and don't want others to have.

Equal Protection in this case is misread because it comes from an activist court. Nobody is being denied marriage. But you have to follow the rules. And society has a right to define those rules. As I said before, your fanatical desires to show your "tolerance" cannot change the definiton of marriage. It is what it is.

So, if German 1930s-40s society defined the rules for Equal Protection as not being a Jew, will that in anyway make the Holocaust any more palatable?