I know of a lot of heterosexuals who care very little for the responsibility of
marriage. That doesn't mean we deny them the option to get married
"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but
laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind.
As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made,
new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of
circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We
might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy
as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous
ancestors." – T. Jefferson - carved into he wall of the Jefferson
Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the
holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus
Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus
Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the
great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its
protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo
and Infidel of every denomination.-T. Jefferson, Autobiography, in
reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom
I most definitely do _not_ want a government that feels obligated to uphold the
myriad irrational and cruel "laws" of the Christian Bible.I
am in fact deeply grateful that so few Americans actually attempt to comply with
what the Christian Bible demands of them.What is good about the
Bible is not unique to the Bible, but what is unique to the Bible is not good.
In my opinion, it is really, really, arrogant to assume that every U.S. citizen
should adhere to your Holy Bible. This is a large diverse nation and people
would do themselves a favor to realize that. Self-righteous,
egocentric attitudes are flaunted way too often in this state....hence, My
Equal treatment. It's already a part of the Constitution. The fact that
you don't believe in equal treatment indicates that you don't believe
in the Constitution.Oh, and btw, we are NOT a "Christian"
nation. We are a nation of many religions, the Christian version being only one
You want judges to abide by the Constitution AND the Bible? You do realize it is
it possible to do both. Both used to allow slavery. Our Constitution has
changed. the parts of the Bible that allow slavery are still there. Also if
judges were to rule according to the Bible, women could not get a divorce
unless they had a sexually unfaithful husband. in other words women could be
stuck with extremely violent husbands.Is this what you want? Might I
suggest that we have judges that rule according to the Golden Rule, common
sense, the Constitution and the law, in that order.
In pitting states against the federal government the Supreme Court majority has
made a mess of the gay-rights issue. Their unfortunate ruling stating the
states have the right to define marriage but gay couples have the right to equal
protection will only bring greater divisiveness to the nation.
Still not a theocracy but thanks.
Edward, your reasoning is fundamentally flawed. If the Supreme Court upholds the
Constitution, it cannot privilege the teachings of the Bible over those of any
other religion. That would be, well, unconstitutional. Ever heard of the
Have you read some of the stuff in that there bible? Not just the happy bits,
but the old testament stuff. Slavery, slaughter your enemy stuff. There's a
lot in there that we need to keep our nation away from.
There are institutions that are much more important than the "feeling"
that some people have that because they can't have what they want, even
though that "thing" has never been part of "marriage", that they
have to tell us that the whole world is wrong and that they alone are right.Marriage is not a "law" passed by government. It is not an
edict passed down from the bench. It is an eternal principle given to us by our
creator, a principle that is immutable no matter how many people refuse to live
it and no matter how many abuse it.We are responsible to our
Creator, not to our peers, not to black-robed justices who think that they just
walked down from Olympus. We are responsible to either accept eternal law or to
reject that law. There are blessing from being obedient and there are serious
consequences for rebellion against eternal laws.Responsibility and
"blessings" cannot be separated. If we want the "blessings"
from a just and merciful creator, we accept his eternal laws without complaint
and without modification.
I dot to tell ya about my little bog. His hole objective in life is to be loved.
He is so happy to see me home when I walk in the door, I just love him. He knows
that for him to get loved he can't chew up stuff that is mine and he knows
what is his stuff he doesn't use the house for his bathroom. I'm taken
a lesion from this little dog And my objective is the same. Simply to be loved.
I assume that's the way, in a world that has lost the way. The Way, is that
important that religions use it for there God.
@mike richards "Marriage is not a "law" passed by
government?" so prop 9 and doma were what exactly? I am sorry but this
argument fails right out of the gate.
prop 8 sorry.
Actually, Sal, a careful reading of Kennedy's ruling is that the states can
expand marriage and the federal government must then honor it. He left open the
possibility of ruling on the merits of restricting marriage if that restriction
deprives a group of their constitutional rights. Reading his DOMA decision that
was based on 5th Amendment protections of Equal Liberty, had the proponents of
Prop 8 been granted standing, it is likely Prop 8 would have been ruled
unconstitutional on the same grounds.
“The justices and leaders of our country place their hand on the Holy
Bible when sworn into office, but do not hold up the Christian values
therein.”Edward – be careful what you wish for. If you
think the Constitution and the Bible are fully compatible, you might be in for a
shock when justices who would put the Bible before the Constitution would
exonerate a husband for stoning his non-virgin bride, or parents who kill their
children for talking back.And if you’re looking for Americans
who did put the Bible before our founding documents, look no further than the
pious slave owners of the antebellum South. As a southern preacher famously said
prior to the civil war, “what is sanctioned in the Old Testament and
affirmed in the New cannot be a sin.” @Owen – great
quote! As Kennedy once said when hosting a White Dinner for Nobel
Laureates, “I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent,
of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered at the White House - with the
possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone.”
"Responsibility and 'blessings' cannot be separated. If we want
the 'blessings' from a just and merciful creator, we accept his
eternal laws without complaint and without modification."What
about the thousands of gay and lesbian men and women who have prayed for
countless of hours to help ease the pain and change their ways? They seek the
blessings that you feel they don't deserve. The answers do not come in the
way they expect. To most, the answer they finally get is "Do what you must
do. Choose love." How can choosing love be wrong? One aspect of the gospel
that I am sure you firmly believe is the atonement. Well, guess what, the
atonement works for our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters just as much as it
works for you. Let Jesus be their judge. I'm sure he'll do a much
Gotta laugh at leftist government worshipers, who try to think that our morals
came from the vapors of thin air, or a rock, or tree, or the light of a
moonbeam. Of course I would try and conjure or fabricate the same theory if I
selfishly wanted to live a careless lifestyle, thinking there were no
consequences, because a tolerant God lets this kind of idiocy go on...for a
time. For decades, gays have had the same rights as everyone else,
when it comes to marriage. Yes gays and even non-gays have chosen to not use
traditional marriage rights, thats their choice! Now we have created special
rights for gays, and redefined marriage, imposing new rules and restrictions on
society. Imposing new beliefs on society, even if its contrary to your own
personal convictions. We have extracted from the courts rulings that cloud and
complicate other marriage arguments and issues. All this to appease a growing
segment of society that "feels" like things aren't fair! This
ruling doesn't exactly demonstrate hard defined right or wrong, it just
creates a feel good appeasement. One vote the other way, and we would be having
an entirely different conversation!
Replace the word Bible with Quran and tell me if you'd feel the same way...
@HaHaHaHa"Now we have created special rights for gays"No we haven't. Gays and even non-gays can choose to use same-sex
marriage, that's their choice. What? It's a choice you have no use
for? Well it didn't stop you from using that argument for gays and non-gays
having opposite-sex marriage.
Marriage is simply a word. Marriage is a word that is used to describing the
bonding of two people or two objects together. The nature of marriage can be
likened to that of glue. Different people and groups may add
different addition attributes to the definition so long as they do not insist on
everyone else using their additions. The concept of freedom of religion means
that anyone and everyone can choose to believe in the additions or not.God or even the natural world itself did not make such additions and
conditions for the purpose of creating babies. The conditions for procreation
don’t require any additional meanings for their purpose. Men
in their quest to garner and control the wealth of the world put special rules
on others as a means of control. Such is the case of the word marriage which is
used to bring joy to the believers and punish the non-believers.
@hahahahaI am far more concerned by people that rely on a mystical belief
to define their morality for them then those that act morally based on
compassion and reason.
@ Edward: From your letter, "The courts and leaders are to hold up the
Constitution and not to change it or redefine it according their political
views. We need men and women who honor the U.S. Constitution and the Holy Bible
back in office if we intend to have a free country."Do you not
realize that your first sentence makes your second sentence invalid?Article 6 of the US Constitution states, "... no religious test shall ever
be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United
States."SOME elected officials have chosen to place their hands
on the Christian Bible when they have been sworn in - others have used the Koran
or law books, some have even just raised their hand and not used a book at all.
And the Constitution does not require one to be used.I always find
it interesting when those who scream so loudly about the Constitution understand
it so poorly and think it is necessary to violate it in order to uphold it.
"...because a tolerant God lets this kind of idiocy go on...".Agency can be messy...however, all things considered, I'd rather have
To "RanchHand" but before the ruling they had equal treatment. Straight
men could not marry a man, a stright woman could not marry a woman. There was
equality. Now, thanks to the ruling we now have inequality.A
straight man, who may love 3 or 4 women is not allowed the same opportunity as
the gay man who can marry the person they love.To those of you who
complain about slavery being an acceptable practice in the Bible, you obviously
don't understand how slavery was carried out during those times. The
slaves were often slaves for a set period of time, after which, were free again.
Often they sold themselves into slavery so that they would have work and
shelter. The problem with modern slavery, and slavery in the US prior to the
civil war was the mistreatment of the people. That was a cultural problem that
did not exist in Bible times.
Sorry Edward, but it is not required to put your hand on the Bible. Many
politicians do not, including many former presidents. There is no mention of God
or the Bible anywhere in the Constitution. Lumping them together is absurd. We
are a representative republic which separates church and state, forbids a
religious test for holding office and has absolute freedom of religion, which
would be impossible if we allowed on particular belief to dominate. We were not
ever intended to be a theocracy.
@RedShirt;Likewise, before the Loving vs Virginia, a black person
could marry a black person and a white person could marry a white person. The
SCOTUS ruled way back then that this wasn't equality.Please try
harder; that is just way too easy to rebuff.
If you want a Biblical America -- Be prepared to also require:Public stoning's, Death penalties for adultery, and all
males required to be circumcised, Oh and -- Throw your sandals
when you travel, not cutting your hair and beards, and no picking
and eating corn on the Sabbath.And for Mormons -- We should be
the very 1st against this sort of "requirement".BTW -- When I was sworn in, I used an LDS Quad, and Muslims use a
Koran.Singling out and Strictly recognizing and only the
"Bible" is tantamount to trampling the Constitutional rights of
Religious worship.[something the Right is DAILY accusing us Lefties being
Don't really see how any straight person's life was negatively
impacted. At all.
@RedShirtYou're actually trying to give us a justification for
slavery? Hoo-boy, I'm beginning to understand why you thinks it's a-ok
to discriminate against gays.
So many on this thread are petrified of a theocracy, but think it's
wonderful when a handful of individuals in black robes lay down the law contrary
to the popular vote or vote in Congress. There is nothing in the
Constitution, including 5th or 14th Amendments, that mandates SSM any more than
it mandates polygamy. The Founding fathers and framers of those amendments
would be the first to set the record straight on that.Is it ok to
impose views as long as they correspond with your own?
Off the mental cliff quote of the day -- RedShirt arguing FOR the
institution of slavery.12:19 p.m. July 2, 2013
the fact that gay people can now marry does not mean that a straight man that
could not marry a straight man or a straight women that could not marry a
straight women or the man that wanted to marry 3 or 4 women was being treated
equally before it mean all these groups were being treated unequally. if any of
the above groups want these rights they should stand up and fight for them and
those that appose it will have to try and make their case based on the facts as
to why they should not be allowed. If they can not give well reasoned evidence
as to a compelling state/social interest being served by denying them the right
to marry then the above groups should be allowed to marry just like what has
happened with the gay community. I agree with ranchhand you are
going to have to try much harder, this line of reasoning went stale a long time
SoCalChris says:"... but think it's wonderful when a
handful of individuals in black robes lay down the law contrary to the popular
vote or vote in Congress. There is nothing in the Constitution,
including 5th or 14th Amendments, that mandates SSM..."---Those 5 people were doing their jobs. The Constitution does provide for
"equal protection", which means that if the government provides benefits
to heterosexuals by virtue of having a marriage license, they have NO valid
reason to deny those very same protections to homosexual couples who have a
marriage license. THAT is what the 5th Amendment DOES say.@RedShirt; You believe in the bible, right? Didn't the
Egyptians practice a version of slavery much like the US had? Mistreating the
slaves, etc. Didn't Pharoah mandate the murder of all the firstborn male
slaves in anticipation of Moses' birth? Your version of slavery in
biblical times rings hollow.
@socalchris what is your reasoning for claiming that the 5th and 14th
amendment do not apply? please tell me it goes beyond simply, "because it
does not say SSM."
Many residents of Utah may feel just fine about a theocracy--until they think
about moving to another state. Should Catholics or Southern Baptists make rules
for how you get to live and worship? Careful, you may not be able to call
yourself a "Christian."
To "RanchHand" that was not equal because all men were not treated
equally. There is no limit on race or religion when it comes to a man marrying
a woman. That is the traditional definition of marriage. If you redefine
marriage to be a man and a man or 2 women, then who is to say that 5 people with
any mix of genders can't be married together.The question that
your ilk has yet to answer is how do you define marriage now?To
"SoCalChris" it's worse than that. Many of the people that are
petrified of a theocracy also claim to believe in the Bible, which states that
there will be a time when the whole earth is governed by a theocracy.To "QuercusQate" it isn't that it is ok to discriminate, but that
people should be left the choice to discriminate or not. You discriminate
everyday, maybe not against people but against different companies or
businesses.To "LDS Liberal" where did I say I was for
slavery? I just said that slavery as practiced in the Bible was not like
Slavery in the 1800's. All I know is that liberalism/progressivism will
make us slaves.
There are many instances in our society where "equal protection"
isn't implemented. It often has nothing to do with race, gender confusion
or age. Why does being gay, qualify one for such special "protection"?
As stated so many times before, they have had the same rights as all citizens
for decades! And please don't give us that second grade theory, that now we
imposed the new laws on society, you can choose to participate in gay marriage
or not. It's the typical leftist excuse, by casing an argument by trying to
compare apples to bananas!
@Scoundrel – “I find it odd that the people who are so against
Muslims (the "9/11 Mosque", Sharia Law fearmongering, etc...) seem to be
the same people argue for upholding the Bible and forcing everyone to live
Biblical Law.”I too find it ironic that people who don’t
know what ironic means often behave in ways that are… wait for it…
ironic. And as someone who fears (for good historical reasons) both of the
scenarios you mention, thanks for pointing this out.But please
don’t confuse this rational fear with being “against Muslims”
are anyone else. What I am against is bad ideas – ideas like being ruled
by men (why is it never women?) who claim to know the mind of God, or those who
want to impose their “divinely inspired” view of morality on
everyone else, or those who have been so deranged by the bad ideas found in
their sacred books that they believe flying planes into buildings in the most
moral thing they can do (and will be rewarded in “paradise” for
it).And I trust any rational human being should and will be against
these bad ideas too…
@Kent C. DeForrest:"If the Supreme Court upholds the Constitution, it
cannot privilege the teachings of the Bible over those of any other
religion."Get ready to have the teachings of the Koran
privileged in years to come as we move away from the teachings of the Christian
Bible. Then, get ready for Shariah Law.Remember, the government,
including the Supreme court, cannot disparage any religion that finds its way
into our country.
@RedShirt;My "ilk" are perfectly aware, as you are not, that
marriage has never, ever been defined solely as "one-man/one-woman".
Given that history provides numerous examples of same-gender couples marrying,
your "historical" version of "traditional marriage" is a
re-written piece of nonsense.You're just going to have to do
better than that buddy. (I think this is my last post)
@hahahahaha So how exactly is it apples to bananas? simply stating
your belief that they are not the same is not really a very compelling argument.
As far as there being many instances of unequal protections in our
society, I hardly think that makes a good case for not allowing gay people to
have rights but rather to fight harder to ensure others have equal protections
@MrBeanhow does that reasoning work exactly? If the government
cannot show privilege to one religion over others then why would the Koran
become privileged? It is only if we accept your claims that one religion, in
this case Christianity, takes precedence over all others that would lead us to
the the possibility of the Koran ever having a privileged position.
@HaHaHaHaGays haven't, in America, ever been allowed to marry
the person they love. Would you like to keep it that way, so they'll marry
your son or daughter instead of one of their own to whom they're actually
Even a cursory reading of the Constitution shows that "marriage" has
nothing to do with the Federal Government. NOTHING in the Constitution
allows the Federal Government to tell the States or the People what
"marriage" means or who can marry whom. That point was
ignored by the Court. That point was ignored by the FEDERAL judge in California
who declared that California had erred by not letting him and his friends have
same-sex marriage. That point is still being ignored by those who claim that
the FEDERAL government has "standing" in any of this.The
Constitution is very specific. If something has not been explicitly delegated
to the Federal Government, that "something" is to be left to the States
or to the People. The 10th Amendment is still part of the Constitution, even if
the definition of "marriage" is not.The people of California
actually believed that the Constitution protected them against federal judges
who usurped their authority. They CHOSE, as a State, to modify their
Constitution, defining "marriage" as the union between a man and a
woman. That was their right, under the Constitution.Yet, those who
do not believe in the Constitution tell us otherwise.
To "RanchHand" I never said that it was between one man and one woman.
I said that marriage was between a man and a woman. If you want to get
technical, there were times that you had one man engaged in multiple marriages
at the same time. The basis has been the same, you have a man and a women who
enter into a marriage contract or ordinance or rite.The interesting
little fact about civilizations that have endorsed homosexual relationships.
They all seem to die in moral decay and tyranical governments. You would think
that if it was such an enlightened principal that it would exist in all cultures
as an acceptable practice. Don't you find it odd that, for example, in the
Roman empire you had the acceptance of homosexuality during their downfall? The
Romans didn't accept it until the Greeks were in collapse.
@Mike Richards --"Even a cursory reading of the Constitution
shows that "marriage" has nothing to do with the Federal
Government."From the Loving v. Virginia SCOTUS case:"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental
to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541
(1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental
freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in
these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of
equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the
State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth
Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by
invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry,
or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be
infringed by the State.
"Just substitute the
concept of sexual orientation for "race" in the above quote, and
it'll fit the current issue perfectly.
@Scoundrel – “And, Tyler D, I stand by my use of the word
ironic.”I was agreeing with you… sorry if my comment
came across as sarcastic or… ahem… ironic.I was simply
making the further point (as a non-believer) that all religions scare me because
of their tendency towards totalitarianism. But I’m also scared of a knee
jerk liberalism that believes we should tolerate everything, even the intolerant
(how’s that for a logical paradox?). And in today’s world, Islam
appears to be the most intolerant and theocratic religion around… just ask
Europe.My personal hero on this issue is Jefferson and as far as
I’m concerned that “wall of separation” cannot be high enough.
@Mike Richards;Many LGBT Americans in California thought that the
Constitution protected their liberty and right to equal treatment under the law.
Guess what, that is actually how it turned out in the end.We are a
Constitutional Republic and the majority does not get to tell minorities what
they may or may not be able to do. Nor does it get to tell them whom they may
marry.You don't believe in same-sex marriage, don't have
one. It really IS that easy.
@RanchHere, UT@Mike Richards;You don't
believe in same-sex marriage, don't have one. It really IS that easy.4:48 p.m. July 2, 2013========Agreed.I
don't believe in "R" rated movies - so I don't see them.I don't believe in smoking, dinking and gambling - so I don't do
them.I don't believe in abortion [except in rape, incest, life/health
of the woman, and viability of the fetus] - so I don't have one....and I don't force other to do likewise.THAT is freedom.Mike insists on a FORCED righteousness on everyone and a total
theocratic authoritative America.The biggest enemies of the U.S.
Constitution and the Pre-Mortal Christ that I can think of.
@Redshirt1701 --"civilizations that have endorsed homosexual
relationships. They all seem to die in moral decay and tyranical
governments."Actually, both the ancient Greek and ancient Roman
civilizations survived for roughly 1000 years -- each -- all the while
encouraging homosexual relations. Their eventual declines had
NOTHING to do with homosexuality. In fact, the decline and fall of the Roman
empire didn't happen until AFTER homosexual marriages were officially
outlawed, in 300 AD, due to encroaching Christian influences.Homosexual unions have been honored at times throughout history. Even the
Assyrians had blessings for same-sex unions written into their religious texts,
and they were also recognized in Mesopotamia.You keep trying to
rewrite history, Red, but the facts just don't support your claims.Keep trying, Red.
Perhaps your copy of the Constitution is different from mine. Article I,
Section 8 lists the duties of the Federal Government. Article III, Section 2
limits the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The 10th Amendment states:"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or
to the people."The Court had no standing in either of the two
major cases. The justices of the Supreme Court, who know better, counted on the
ignorance of the citizens who have a contract with the government, a contract
that limites the GOVERNMENT from infringing on the soverign rights of the States
and of the people. The State of California obeyed ITS Constitution
and used the rules set out in ITS Constitution to modify ITS Constitution. The
Federal Government had no standing no matter what the supporters of
gay-"marriage" may say. The STATES and the PEOPLE decide all issues
concerning marriage. The people of California obeyed the law. No
Constitutional amendment has nullified Amendment 10. It was not a matter for
the Federal Governmen regardless the political opinion of those who ruled
@mike Richards Even with a cursory reading it is plain to see that the
states do not have the right to vote away or legislate away indivduals
constitution rights. the 5th and 14th amendments forbid the actions take.n by
calf and doma. The federally protected rights of the constitution are not up for
vote plain and simple.
QQ Let's just get a little ridicules, but still
accurately make the point. And no, this is not one of the examples I referred to
earlier. Suppose I and a few million of my friends, decided it was unfair, not
"equal treatment under the law" for people of all income classes (the
rich) to be excluded from social welfare programs. You know those freebie,
handout, giveaway programs of the 47% that mrobama glamorizes, and all leftists
love, because it abdicates them from making any real sacrifice or effort in the
war on poverty. Anyway, me and my friends sue the government, to get them to
allow us to participate in welfare, and we win the fight for welfare justice.
It's no longer welfare as we know it traditionally, but me and my friends
imposed the change on society. Maybe I'll smooth things over by telling the
traditional welfare persons that even though I've ruined the name and
tradition of their program, they still have the choice to participate, even if
their not rich. It's available to everybody now, we're all
"equal". It's apple to bananas to say I'm offering the same as
Contrarius , Loving v Virginia correctly followed the 14th Amendment.
There's virtually no legal difference between a black person and a white
one. That's what the 14th Amendment is all about. Thankfully the law
still recognizes differences based on gender. You can't freely substitute
race and gender. Separate restrooms for blacks and whites are unconstitutional.
Separate restrooms, locker rooms, sports teams for men and women are not. Not yet anyway. Who knows what SCOTUS may decide in the future.
That's the problem. There is no danger of a theocracy based on the
Judeo-Christian values we were founded upon. Those are the values that gave us
freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the Equal Protection Clause. There
is a very real danger though of a sort of secular PC tyranny posed by a handful
of individuals substituting their own sense of superior enlightenment for
what's in the Constitution.Spring Street, a gay person has
never been denied the right to marry. SSM proponents are demanding that the
definition be changed. That's up to the people, not the courts.
@SoCalChris"but think it's wonderful when a handful of
individuals in black robes lay down the law contrary to the popular vote or vote
in Congress. "Not always, only if I believe the law is
unconstitutional do I think it's a good thing for it to be struck down
regardless of popularity.
I have to confess, I'm a little confused by what the letter writer is try
to say exactly.What does equal rights and equal responsibility have
to do with the U.S. being a "Christian Nation?"
@SoCalChris --"Loving v Virginia correctly followed the 14th
Amendment. "So did the overthrow of DOMA's section 3.
:-)"There's virtually no legal difference between a black
person and a white one."There's also virtually no legal
difference between a man and a woman. Gender discrimination is already
illegal."Separate restrooms, locker rooms, sports teams for men
and women... "Restrooms are a matter of public safety and right
to privacy.Sports are a matter of differing physical strength,
speed, and so on. In sports where these characteristics don't matter, like
equestrian sports, there is NO gender separation.Age discrimination
is also illegal. Nonetheless, older people are still legally disallowed from
various activities when physical limitations would create risks.Sometimes physical characteristics like age or gender matter -- and sometimes
they don't.Physical characteristics make NO difference to love
or commitment.Lawrence v. Texas overturned sodomy laws because those
laws "furthers no legitimate state interest". Similarly, there is no
"legitimate state interest" in denying homosexuals the right to same-sex
marriage. That's why DOMA section 3 was overturned.That's
also why gay marriages will eventually become legal countrywide. There is no
"legitimate state interest" in continuing to prevent them.
@SoCalChris: "...a gay person has never been denied the right to marry. SSM
proponents are demanding that the definition be changed."How
would you like it if the law mandated that you could only marry a gay man, even
though the only people you'd ever fallen in love with were women?I don't understand the argument by straight people that gay people have
always had the "right" to marry a straight person. Do you want us
marrying you or your adult children??