One Judge vs 7 million votes

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by SteamWake

In a nutshell tax laws.

Again, how is that discriminatory? Men and women, REGARDLESS of sexual orientation, have the same exact rights. What they want are different rights.

[Aramike]

They should just copy the text of Loving vs. Virginia word for word, and replace every mention of "race" with "sexual orientation." That would be a fine pimpslap to the anti-gay marriage crowd.

Too bad that doesn't work.

Loving V Virginia was about bestowing the same rights on all men and women under the premise that all men and women are created equal.

The issue of gay marriage, namely Prop 8, is specifically based upon the opposite concept, that not all men and women are created equal and therefore not placated by the same laws. A law that marriage is between a man and a woman applies EXACTLY THE SAME to ALL men, and ALL women, despite their sexual orientation. What gays are asking for is something quite different, and although you've cited this ruling repeatedly, it makes no sense in this context.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Aramike

A law that marriage is between a man and a woman applies EXACTLY THE SAME to ALL men, and ALL women, despite their sexual orientation.

Really? Telling a gay man "You're free to marry anyone you want, so long as they're not another guy" sounds an awful lot like telling a black man "You're free to marry anyone you want, so long as they're not white."

You're denying people rights based on an innate characteristic of who they are. That's the very definition of discrimination.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Aramike

Again, how is that discriminatory? Men and women, REGARDLESS of sexual orientation, have the same exact rights. What they want are different rights.

You fail to make the distinction between natural rights and legal rights. You argue that it does not discriminate, but the truth is that it actually guarantees the "right" to marry only whom you say they can marry.

What is certainly being denied is the "right" to marry whom they want to marry.

Deny it all you like, it is without question discriminatory.

[frau kaleun]

Originally Posted by Aramike

Again, how is that discriminatory? Men and women, REGARDLESS of sexual orientation, have the same exact rights. What they want are different rights.

If a straight person has the right to marry the person of his/her choice, and a gay person doesn't, they do not have the same rights, period. One person has a right to do something, and the other person has been denied the same opportunity. Wanting the right to do the same thing that someone else can do is not wanting a "different right." It's wanting the same right. How is that not obvious?

That's like arguing that suffragettes were demanding "different rights" because they wanted to be able to vote just like their menfolk did. Winning the right to vote didn't give them "special rights" on account of them being female. It gave them the SAME RIGHTS that non-females already had, and rights that they had to qualify for in the exact same way that non-females did.

Saying that giving another citizen a right or opportunity they are denied but which you already have just by virtue of being a citizen same as them, is giving them a "special" right - it's basically admitting that their citizenship is already of the second-class variety and that a special exception msut be made to allow them the privileges that "real" citizens get just by being alive.