You asserted that "interracial marriage" was deviant, and I demonstrated that it's not deviant at all, in fact, it's the norm. The court is not charged with determining what might be acceptable, only what is or isn't acceptable according to the law.
Your silly reasoning did not enter into the court's decision, at all. If it had then it could have only lead to upholding the Virginia law.
Marriage across generalized racial boundaries is deviant but not prohibitable.
You're getting yourself confused Stringy. I never said laws against interracial marriage would be acceptable if there was racial purity. I also never indicated Loving had anything to do with deviance. It pertained to specific racial discrimination, placing an unequal standard on a specific race of people because of the color of their skin.
It does have to do with deviance. Your argument is that homosexuality is sexually deviant and, therefore, 14th amendment protection of it must apply to all "sexual deviancy" which you think is the basis for incest or stat rape laws. The stupidity of this is demonstrated by Lawrence and Loving, both of which involved sexual deviance and neither of which lead to overturning laws against all "sexual deviance."
Deviant has nothing to do with justifying state action.
Only hermaphrodites have both genitalia, and even then, there is indeed a 'dominating' genitalia, (usually female.) As for your point about 'gender' I can accept your viewpoint, I have often believed that everyone has a certain degree of male AND female gender, and homosexuals happen to have more of the opposite gender than normal, which is what makes them homosexual. I don't dispute this, although I don't know it is clinically conclusive or supported by science. But none of this has anything to do with how marriage has been defined for 5,000 years, and what marriage is. It's still the union of a male and female, regardless of the level of "gender" they may have.
Dropping context. It has to do with your point concerning race not being exclusive and therefore laws barring interracial marriages being nullified (not according to Loving, but you).
The courts give value to what the law says, and it clearly states you can't discriminate on the basis of someone's skin color. It "deviates" from the norm for someone to be racially pure! Most all of us have a mixture of two or more racial ethnicities, and are not "racially pure" by any stretch. All of us have a birth certificate (except Obama) which defines our gender as male or female. I don't know of an example where someone is defined as "unknown" or "both."
The 14th does not say the state may not deny due process on account of race, alone. It says they cannot deny due process, period.
You just acnowledged that gender is not binary or pure. What the fuck, does a birth certificate have to do with it? If they said you were white on the birth certificate does that mean the state can bar interracial marriage?
You go off into the most irrelevant nonsense, possible.
You are the one grasping at straws here, you haven't made a legitimate argument yet, for what you want to do. You keep trying to make invalid comparisons, and change the definition of marriage to suit your argument. Marriage is the union of a male and female, same-sex unions are NOT marriage. You can say they function just like a marriage, I am okay with that... You can say they deserve to have the same considerations as marriage, I can accept that.... but you can't call them marriages, because that isn't what marriage is defined as. Sorry!
I certainly have. The state may not deny due process or equal protections of the laws without a compelling state interest. That has been clearly noted in 14th amendment cases, including Lawrence v Texas, whether you wish to remain ignorant of it or not.
No, that is a discrimination based on race alone, which is illegal and against the Constitution. It is not permissible. There is no Constitutional protection against discrimination based on sexual deviancy, we can and do discriminate against various types of sexual deviant behaviors in our society. But with "Marriage" there is no discrimination, homosexuals are not prohibited from "Marriage" at all, in fact, I think it's illegal for the State to even ask if you are homosexual before issuing a "Marriage" license.
Blacks nor white were discriminated against because both were equally prohibited from marrying outside their race. Your requirement is discrimination based on gender alone.
Again, nothing in the 14th limits state power to discriminate based on race, alone. You are just lying, as this has been pointed out numerous times. You don't deny it, you just ignore it.
I could ask you the same question regarding "consent" or age of consent! Why are your moral standards okay to apply in your case, but someone elses moral standard would be unacceptable to you? Well, you claim something about the state's interest to protect the "victim" but the "victim" is determined to be such, by your definition of "victim" and not someone elses moral judgment of when someone is a victim.
If you wanted to evade the question that was put to you (which is all the fuck you have done here, is evade, spin and lie), sure you could. But I have already answered this numerous times.
The age of consent is determined by the majority or their representatives. This is permissable because the laws serve a legitimate state interest. What constitutes a victim is similiarly defined. Both have developed and been checked based, not on my morals, but through the common law.
Again, laws barring same sex marriages serve no legitimate state interest.
But, let's get back to the question you are trying to duck. How is it that your "want" is important here when it is not in restricting homosexuals to enter same sex marriages?
I agree! I have not proposed we give CU's to gay people and retain marriage for straight people. If that were my argument, you would have a legitimate point, but it hasn't ever been my argument, so you have no point here. I suggested we remove government from the business of issuing a "marriage" license entirely, and replace that with a "civil unions" contract that any two people could enter, providing they are of legal age to enter into contract. This would remove the issue of "marriage" as a religious institution, the issue of "marriage" as it pertains to deviant sexual behavior, and the issue of the government regulating or endorsing ANY behavior or religious viewpoint. It would give gay couples every benefit they seek, it would protect the sanctity of marriage, and all sides get what they want.... except for the great Immoral Crusaders, who simply want to use this issue to denigrate Christianity and religious viewpoints.
These are just weasel words and a red herring. The opponents of gay marriage do not/would not support your position. You pretend that you speak for all the opponents of gay marriage when you don't.
Your argument is that the state may discriminate against the deviant and that understanding would soon lead to discrimination against gay marriages.
A rose is a rose by any other name. The word used is irrelevant, the concept is what is important, and there is no reason to pretend that the word "marriage" is the issue, becasue it is not for either side.
Marriage is not, exclusively, a religious institution. You can't trademark it and it is commonly used to describe things that we are not talking about. For instance, one could say Star Wars contained a marriage of music and effects. Should we go out and demand that that not be permitted? Of course, not. There is no legitimate state interest in assuring that specific definitions be used.
Again, what I proposed is not "separate but equal" at all, we would all be eligible for the same CU contracts, across the board, subject to minimal requirements of age and consent, as we currently have with all contracts.
Yes, they would be, supposedly, equal but seperate. That is seperate but equal.
What will be the REAL problem with the 14th, is IF we redefine marriage because it needs to accommodate a sexually deviant lifestyle. Once we've established that can be done, then every sexual deviant lifestyle has a legitimate 14th amendment argument for THEIR lifestyle being given "equal protection under the law" and we have essentially NO way of denying this right to them as well. We can't pick and choose what sexual deviancy is okay and which can be discriminated against, if we establish that sexual deviancy is a basis to establish a law. That's precisely what the 14th spells out! Legitimize "Gay Marriage" into law, and the Polygamists are already lining up to obtain their equal rights... and the Pedophiles are right behind them...
This has been torn to shreds. WHY HASN'T LAWRENCE LED TO OVERTURNING LAWS AGAINST STAT RAPE OR INCEST??? You continue to evade the question because you know it demonstrates your non sequitur.
I don't see any good reason to prohibit polygamy, either. But that would be a seperate case. Maybe, you can tell us what legitimate state interest is served in prohibiting it? You have not been able to do that with gay marriage.
It's best we find a solution to this problem without "redefining" what something means. The consequences are largely untold, because you just can't use your limp noodle to think ahead and imagine them. You are operating on sheer emotion, and not pragmatic common sense. I have repeatedly said I can sympathize with the 'plight' of homosexual couples who want to obtain benefits or whatever, as traditional married couples are presently able to do... I have offered a viable solution to the problem. But for some strange reason, rather than accepting my solution or agreeing with me, you had rather continue the debate, continue calling me a racial bigot, and all kinds of other derogatory names, while keeping this issue ginned up and going on and on. Who is really obstructing "progress" here?
It's best that we ignore racist homophobes, like you, who are only interested in obstucting progress and move on with or without you. Your argument is well on it's way to extinction, just as the arguments against interracial marriages.
What is your position on the constitutionality of laws outlawing homosexual sex? Are they permissible? If the majority says we should punish it by death, is that okay?
