WorldWatcher
Gold Member
It is you who has made it a matter of absolutes throughout this entire discussion. You began with the premise that it was somehow only about liberty and that's the state and no positive action or function outside of somehow making men free through it's very existence
How about making reply's about what I actually said instead of constructing some absolute strawman and then arguing that.
What I've said is it's about liberty and freedom tempered by a compelling government interest for treating like situated groups in a similar fashion and that the government should not create invidious and capricious laws with no basis. As yet no compelling government interest has been presented which justifies treating law abiding, tax paying, US citizen, infertile, non-related, consenting, adults in a same-sex couple differently then law abiding, tax paying, US citizen, infertile, non-related, consenting, adults in a same-sex couples in different sex couples.
So far the "there is no discrimination" argument has been tried.
Then there was the social engineering and government definition of family argument.
Then there was the it's government job to fix social ill's argument.
Then there was the it's governments responsibility to ensure society remains static and does not change.
All lacking government compelling interests.
>>>>