g5000
Diamond Member
- Nov 26, 2011
- 127,192
- 70,939
- 2,605
The difference, you keep leaving out, is that the word "arms" "keep and bear" and "not to be infringed" are ALREADY IN THE CONSITUTION. it is then up to the courts to intepret these words. Thus we can all agree (or most of us) that people cannot keep a fucking howtizer in thier backyard (not arms) but can keep a personal firearm on thier person or at least in thier home.
There is no reference to marriage in the consitution. To get where you are going you have to go with the equal protection stretch. However now we rely on an interpretation of another intepretation, not an interpretation of base wording in the document.
If people are so hell bent on marriage equality, why not propose this:
1. The right to marriage between two people, regardless of gender, shall not be infringed except in cases of incest, bigamy, or coercsion shall not be infringed"
At that point the right is safe, its in the consitution, and my oppositon to gay marriage ends.
This is why I started the Reasons To Be Anti-Gay, By The Numbers topic a while back. Just for people like you.
Because you clearly have not heard me say, several times, that access to Santa's cash and prizes is protected under the 14th amendment's "equal protection of the laws" clause.
When a state sanctions the marriage of two people, they are entitled BY LAW to certain cash and prizes.
Got that? Has that penetrated your blindness yet? Law. Cash and prizes. Tax deductions, Social Security death benefits, and many other such things. These are not magically bestowed on people. They are provided IN LAWS.
DOMA blocks gay married people, who are LEGALLY married, from access to those cash and prizes.
.
.
Creating civil unions and making them equal to marriage would accomplish the same thing, wouldnt it? It just wouldnt be called marriage. This has been proposed, and rejected by many in the Marriage equality movement.
Plus civil unions would be created via legislation, which meets my requirement for getting the courts out of it. There is no consitutional ban on allowing civil unions, as all they are is a form of contract, recognized by the government.
Happy now?
What is up with this bigoted hangup over calling gay marriages marriages? It's the stupidest objection out of all the objections.
As for the rest, when gay marriages are able to file joint tax returns and collect Social Security death benefits and all the other gifts from Uncle Santa, THEN their marriages will be equal.
If you want to be HAPPY, then do that with legislation. Go right ahead. I wish you would. Then you won't have to force the courts to do it for you.
But you didn't. You passed DOMA instead.
.