Quantcast

Comments about ‘Gay marriage ban backers seek Supreme Court review’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, July 31 2012 7:15 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
A voice of Reason
Salt Lake City, UT

RanchHand,

I and others have argued that the government should treat people equally- BUT that "equal protection of the laws" only applies to the law as written- that if a law defines marriage as man+woman, then as long as all people are bound by that same law, then the clause is satisfied. As I am out of room, I will also note that I have also argued here multiple times (which anyone can read) on how Loving v Virginia does not set a precedent for gay marriage arguments.

The fact that my arguments ARE REGARDING the Equal Protection Clause is objective proof that my argument at the VERY least is relevant to this debate. Your 'red herring' accusation is therefore not logical.

Equal treatment does not equate to relativist government. If "anything goes", then law cannot exist A Priori. Without some form of 'moral version' there would be no law.

Arguing that equal moral recognition "is a right" is an "Invincible Ignorance Fallacy" and a "conversation-stopper". It's an attempt to circumvent any further consideration in favor of tyranny disguised as legal relativism (aka: anarchy). Rather, you should be arguing WHY you consider equal moral recognition a right.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments