Civil Right?

[sparky]

seems to me we have both the scotus, as well as scripture sayin' "anything goes folks"
~S~

 

[George Costanza]

You have no right to tell a man he cannot marry his sister as you have no right to tell a man he cannot marry another man. I have always wondered why people can have such a double standard here - assuming that they have the moral high ground in prevent one set of consulting adults yet calling other bigots for doing the exact same thing.

There are solid, genetic reasons why brothers and sisters should not marry. There are no valid reasons whatsoever (except intolerance and bigotry) why two people of the same sex should not marry.

The only people attempting to assert a "moral high ground" are the hypocritical bigots who run around mouthing opposition to gay marriage.

First - I would argue that is NOT the main purpose of government. More to the topic though - that is a terrible stance because promoting gay marriage is NOT promoting a well running society as gays are unable to further society with children - the underlying purpose of union is family. The government's main purpose, to me, is to ensure our freedoms and under that guise, gay marriage has no effect on anyone's rights. Therefore, there is no reason to restrict it.

Gays should not be allowed to marry because they are unable to further society with children? The shallowness of this argument clearly demonstrates the true motiviation of those opposed to gay marriage - merely a desire to attack gays because they are gay and for no other reason. In other words, intolerance and bigotry.

The fact that a gay couple cannot produce a child would have little or no effect on our society, largely because the percentage of same sex marriages would be so infinitesimal, compared to the number of heterosexual marriages in existence. And besides, there are more than enough people in our country (and the world, for that matter). Maybe a little population thinning would be a good thing.

 

[sparky]

Maybe a little population thinning would be a good thing.

well gay marriages don't assume the pitter patter of little gay feet

so one would think the opposition all for it

~S~

 

[Cecilie1200]

No one cares to chime in with the reason that Gay Marriage is somehow a Civil Right?

Likely because it isn’t a civil right.

Indeed, there’s no such thing as ‘gay marriage,’ as each state has the same marriage law for everyone.

The issue has to do with equal access to the laws, in this case marriage laws, as required by the 14th Amendment.

As the Court noted in Romer:

It is not within our constitutional tradition to enact laws of this sort. Central both to the idea of the rule of law and to our own Constitution's guarantee of equal protection is the principle that government and each of its parts remain open on impartial terms to all who seek its assistance. “‘Equal protection of the laws is not achieved through indiscriminate imposition of inequalities.'” Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U.S. 629, 635 (1950) (quoting Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1, 22 (1948)). Respect for this principle explains why laws singling out a certain class of citizens for disfavored legal status or general hardships are rare. A law declaring that in general it shall be more difficult for one group of citizens than for all others to seek aid from the government is itself a denial of equal protection of the laws in the most literal sense. “The guaranty of 'equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws.'” Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942) (quoting Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 369 (1886)).

Except that everyone has equal access to marriage laws, since everyone in this country is either male or female. Granted, they may not WANT to make use of those laws, because they don't want to marry someone of the opposite sex, but that doesn't mean they don't have access to them. The only way someone could NOT have access to the marriage laws is if they were some other sex besides male or female.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Who cares if he is in the minority, he is right. It is not the business of government to decide who gets protection under the law and who does not. Law should be equal for all. If you do not want government sponsorship of marriages that do not agree with your morality then you are going to need to support getting government out of ALL marriages. If not, then marriage needs to be extended to gay couples as well.

Actually, it IS the business of government to decide what it will and won't recognize as a marriage, which is not the same thing as saying that "some people get the protection of the law, and some don't". You will notice that the government does not delve into the WHY of the marriage. It has always recognized the same thing as a marriage, regardless of who engaged in it and for what purpose. Many gay people DO marry people of the opposite sex, for a variety of reasons (Arianna Huffington's husband, for example). The government duly recognizes those relationships as marriages, despite the fact that they involve gay people, so no discrimination of persons exists.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Who cares if he is in the minority, he is right. It is not the business of government to decide who gets protection under the law and who does not. Law should be equal for all. If you do not want government sponsorship of marriages that do not agree with your morality then you are going to need to support getting government out of ALL marriages. If not, then marriage needs to be extended to gay couples as well.

Exactly, and equal protection under and access to the law also extends to the churches that are willing to perform the wedding rites, and having those rites as supported by state licenses as other churches are. Licensing one dogma's preference over another flies in the face of the establishment clause.

I hate to break it to you, but the law DOES differentiate between which ministers' weddings it will recognize, and which it will not. As with everything the state legally recognizes, there are specific criteria that must be met. Not just anyone can declare himself a minister and start performing weddings, and get them legally recognized by the state.

 

[Cecilie1200]

No one cares to chime in with the reason that Gay Marriage is somehow a Civil Right? Have I fairly portrayed the argument?

Is hetero marriage a civil right here?

~S~

I've never considered it to be, personally. I consider marriage, whoever is involved, to be a specific sort of contract between two parties. I suppose the ability to enter into contracts and have them recognized and enforced might be considered a civil right, since obviously slaves and indentured servants could not do so, back when our country allowed such practices.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Exactly, and equal protection under and access to the law also extends to the churches that are willing to perform the wedding rites, and having those rites as supported by state licenses as other churches are. Licensing one dogma's preference over another flies in the face of the establishment clause.

I would not go that far. While I believe that the government is required to support such marriages I do not see how a religious institution (or any institution that is not a government one for that matter) should be forced to do any such thing. The equal protection has nothing to do with the ceremony. It is the license and marriage certificate that you purchase from the government that matters. Churches regularly refuse to marry people for a number of reasons. My mother was forced to become a member of her church (because her spouse wanted to marry in a specific church) because the pastor refused to marry people outside the churches faith.

What makes you believe that a pastor or other church representative should be compelled to provide any service whatsoever to anyone? I don't believe in forcing anyone to do anything.

read my post again. It did NOT suggest that churches that did not support gender equality should be forced to do so, but that those churches that DO support and wish to perform the rites have THEIR ceremonies AS supported by a government license as the other churches already are.

And where are you, that you're having trouble getting certain churches' ordinations recognized by the state?

By the way, having your ordinations - and the resultant ability to marry and bury - recognized by the state is not the same thing as being able to decide for yourself what the state will recognize as a marriage. You are still required to follow state law on that matter.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Who says its a civil right?

Off the top of my head Bodecea or how ever her name is spelled as well as Plasmaball and several others in several DIFFERENT threads. The Gay Community claims it is a civil right in their arguments all the time. Are you saying I known more about the arguments used for Gay marriage then you do?

Where does the gay community claim that, except in states where gay marriage is legal? Its obviously not a civil right if it isn't legally protected.

Someone should have told the civil rights movement of the 60s that, then, because they had this odd notion that they had civil rights that weren't being legally protected, and that they had to fight to get that legal protection. Would have saved everyone a lot of hassle if you had just explained to them that lack of legal protection meant they didn't have any civil rights.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Laws banning brothers and sisters marrying are legal because they're applied to everyone equally, which is not the case with gays and marriage.

How are marriage laws not applied equally? Perhaps you ought to look at the actual wording of the laws.

If you look, for example, at the Arizona Revised Statutes, Title 25 (I chose Arizona because I live there), you will see that it talks about which relationships it will recognize as a marriage and which it will not, but nowhere does it say ANYTHING about "this group of people is allowed to participate, and this group is not". You may not WANT to participate in any of the recognized arrangements, but the law is not PREVENTING you from doing so.

Sorry, but refusing to recognize the arrangement you would like to have is not discriminatory, because they're not recognizing that arrangement for anyone else, either.

Arizona Revised Statutes

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Off the top of my head Bodecea or how ever her name is spelled as well as Plasmaball and several others in several DIFFERENT threads. The Gay Community claims it is a civil right in their arguments all the time. Are you saying I known more about the arguments used for Gay marriage then you do?

Clearly there exists a kind of political shorthand with regard to the issue that although inaccurate nonetheless expresses a concept.

But there is no such thing as ‘gay rights,’ ‘civil rights for gays,’ or ‘gay marriage.’ Indeed, gays have the same rights as everyone else – no more, no less. The issue is access to those rights.

Consequently, there is a right to equal access to the law, including marriage law, regardless one’s race, gender, or sexual orientation.

So two gay brothers would be prohibited from marrying? Or two lesbian sisters? How about a gay father and son?

Yes, provided such laws are equally applied.

The issue isn’t the authority of the government to ban, restrict, or regulate a thing, but the requirement that such bans, restrictions, and regulations be consistent and rationally based.

The state may ban plural marriage, for example, provided it’s applied to all equally. If the state were to ban plural marriage only for Asian-Americans, for instance, then such a ban would be subject to challenge.

Except that everyone has equal access to marriage laws, since everyone in this country is either male or female. Granted, they may not WANT to make use of those laws, because they don't want to marry someone of the opposite sex, but that doesn't mean they don't have access to them. The only way someone could NOT have access to the marriage laws is if they were some other sex besides male or female.

As noted in Perry, the case recently ruled on, marriage is a contract between two equals, gender not withstanding; consequently the configuration of the couple is irrelevant. In addition, persons exist in classes other than male or female, to restrict an individual from his state’s marriage laws for no other reason than being gay is un-Constitutional.

“A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws.”

Actually, it IS the business of government to decide what it will and won't recognize as a marriage, which is not the same thing as saying that "some people get the protection of the law, and some don't".

Not if that ‘recognition’ of marriage is such as to exclude a particular class of persons.

How are marriage laws not applied equally? Perhaps you ought to look at the actual wording of the laws.

If you look, for example, at the Arizona Revised Statutes, Title 25 (I chose Arizona because I live there), you will see that it talks about which relationships it will recognize as a marriage and which it will not, but nowhere does it say ANYTHING about "this group of people is allowed to participate, and this group is not". You may not WANT to participate in any of the recognized arrangements, but the law is not PREVENTING you from doing so.

Sorry, but refusing to recognize the arrangement you would like to have is not discriminatory, because they're not recognizing that arrangement for anyone else, either.

It’s not how the laws are written, it’s how the laws are applied.

If a same-sex couple can obtain a marriage license in Arizona – the exact same license as issued to an opposite-sex couple – regardless how the law is written, then there’s no issue.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Actually, it IS the business of government to decide what it will and won't recognize as a marriage, which is not the same thing as saying that "some people get the protection of the law, and some don't".

Not if that ‘recognition’ of marriage is such as to exclude a particular class of persons.

But no class of persons is being excluded. Again, the law does not specify any class of people not allowed to participate in state-recognized marriages, as was the case with interracial marriage bans. You may not CHOOSE to participate in the arrangements recognized by the state as marriages, but that's entirely up to you. And as I have pointed out, quite a few homosexuals DO participate in marital arrangements which are recognized by the state, with no objection whatsoever by the state on the basis of their homosexuality.

Not having the particular arrangement you would like to have on the list of state-sanctioned options is not the same as not being allowed to participate.

How are marriage laws not applied equally? Perhaps you ought to look at the actual wording of the laws.

If you look, for example, at the Arizona Revised Statutes, Title 25 (I chose Arizona because I live there), you will see that it talks about which relationships it will recognize as a marriage and which it will not, but nowhere does it say ANYTHING about "this group of people is allowed to participate, and this group is not". You may not WANT to participate in any of the recognized arrangements, but the law is not PREVENTING you from doing so.

Sorry, but refusing to recognize the arrangement you would like to have is not discriminatory, because they're not recognizing that arrangement for anyone else, either.

It’s not how the laws are written, it’s how the laws are applied.

If a same-sex couple can obtain a marriage license in Arizona – the exact same license as issued to an opposite-sex couple – regardless how the law is written, then there’s no issue.

Really? So please tell me how Arizona marriage law is being applied unequally. Are homosexuals being prevented from participating in the marital arranagements recognized by the state of Arizona? I can tell you for a fact that that isn't true, because one of my best friends is a gay man, married to a woman (hey, she was rich). The state of Arizona didn't blink an eye, did not, in fact, even ASK about his sexual orientation.

Sorry, but once again, not recognizing the specific arrangement you want to have as a marriage is not the same as not allowing you to participate in marital arrangements.

 

[Luissa]

But the Constitution doesn't define marriage between a man and a women. So how can the government legally tell two consenting adults who they can marry, especially when you bring in the 14th amendment.

No one cares to chime in with the reason that Gay Marriage is somehow a Civil Right?

Likely because it isn’t a civil right.

Indeed, there’s no such thing as ‘gay marriage,’ as each state has the same marriage law for everyone.

The issue has to do with equal access to the laws, in this case marriage laws, as required by the 14th Amendment.

As the Court noted in Romer:

It is not within our constitutional tradition to enact laws of this sort. Central both to the idea of the rule of law and to our own Constitution's guarantee of equal protection is the principle that government and each of its parts remain open on impartial terms to all who seek its assistance. “‘Equal protection of the laws is not achieved through indiscriminate imposition of inequalities.'” Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U.S. 629, 635 (1950) (quoting Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1, 22 (1948)). Respect for this principle explains why laws singling out a certain class of citizens for disfavored legal status or general hardships are rare. A law declaring that in general it shall be more difficult for one group of citizens than for all others to seek aid from the government is itself a denial of equal protection of the laws in the most literal sense. “The guaranty of 'equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws.'” Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942) (quoting Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 369 (1886)).

Except that everyone has equal access to marriage laws, since everyone in this country is either male or female. Granted, they may not WANT to make use of those laws, because they don't want to marry someone of the opposite sex, but that doesn't mean they don't have access to them. The only way someone could NOT have access to the marriage laws is if they were some other sex besides male or female.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

But the Constitution doesn't define marriage between a man and a women. So how can the government legally tell two consenting adults who they can marry…

It may if it’s consistent and rationally based.

But restricting homosexuals from marriage is inconsistent and irrational.

…especially when you bring in the 14th amendment.

Which is the mechanism of consistency. Among other things the 14th Amendment codifies the doctrine of inalienable rights, that regardless one’s jurisdiction, regardless majority opinion, his right to due process and equal access to the laws will not be infringed.

 

[WorldWatcher]

But no class of persons is being excluded. Again, the law does not specify any class of people not allowed to participate in state-recognized marriages, as was the case with interracial marriage bans. You may not CHOOSE to participate in the arrangements recognized by the state as marriages, but that's entirely up to you.

No "class of persons" of persons were being excluded in Civil Marriage in the State of Virginia which prompted the Loving v. Virginia case.

As a matter of fact that same logic, which failed to sway the court, was presented by the State in defense of it's anti-miscegenation law. That logic being that no class was excluded because Civil Marriage was available to each individual. That because whites could marry whites, and coloreds could marry coloreds - neither was excluded because they could not choose to marry each other.

So please tell me how Arizona marriage law is being applied unequally. Are homosexuals being prevented from participating in the marital arranagements recognized by the state of Arizona?

Seems the implication is that because an individual has access to Civil Marriage, that the access of a couple isn't, and cannot be, considered as part of the equation. Again that is not quite correct. Using that logic then the SCOTUS never would have accepted the Loving case. Mr. Loving had access to Civil Marriage with a member of his own race, Mrs. Loving had access to Civil Marriage with members of her own race. The court should have refused the case because neither was denied access to Civil Marriage, yet it was the treatment of the couple that was evaluated by the court and not just that of the individual.

The treatment of the status of the couple is similar in both the cases of anti-miscegenation and anti-same sex statutes because both are based on a biological conditions. Race and gender both being biological. If you don't think biology is the basis of the law, then go back and read the laws - they are all based on gender. For example we can examine Arizona's statute " 25-101. Void and prohibited marriages" which provides that "C. Marriage between persons of the same sex is void and prohibited." - the determining factor is gender and not sexual orientation.



>>>>

 

[Cecilie1200]

But the Constitution doesn't define marriage between a man and a women. So how can the government legally tell two consenting adults who they can marry, especially when you bring in the 14th amendment.

Likely because it isn’t a civil right.

Indeed, there’s no such thing as ‘gay marriage,’ as each state has the same marriage law for everyone.

The issue has to do with equal access to the laws, in this case marriage laws, as required by the 14th Amendment.

As the Court noted in Romer:

Except that everyone has equal access to marriage laws, since everyone in this country is either male or female. Granted, they may not WANT to make use of those laws, because they don't want to marry someone of the opposite sex, but that doesn't mean they don't have access to them. The only way someone could NOT have access to the marriage laws is if they were some other sex besides male or female.

Is the US Constitution the only set of laws in the country? No? Then that would be how. The Constitution of the State of Arizona, for example, DOES define marriage - as recognized by the state - as being between one man and one woman, since marriage is properly a matter of state law, not federal.

The Fourteenth Amendment has nothing to do with the issue, except insofar as you cannot define a relationship as marriage between one couple and refuse to recognize the exact same relationship as marriage between another couple. A same-sex relationship is NOT "the exact same relationship" as defined by state law as a heterosexual relationship. Feel free to go look at the Arizona Revised Statutes for an example of the defined marital relationship which must be recognized as marriage in all cases.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Clayton's description would INCLUDE blood relatives since he keeps using the term consenting adults. How again can they be discriminated against if no class of consenting adult may be so discriminated against for any reason?

 

[Cecilie1200]

But no class of persons is being excluded. Again, the law does not specify any class of people not allowed to participate in state-recognized marriages, as was the case with interracial marriage bans. You may not CHOOSE to participate in the arrangements recognized by the state as marriages, but that's entirely up to you.

No "class of persons" of persons were being excluded in Civil Marriage in the State of Virginia which prompted the Loving v. Virginia case.

As a matter of fact that same logic, which failed to sway the court, was presented by the State in defense of it's anti-miscegenation law. That logic being that no class was excluded because Civil Marriage was available to each individual. That because whites could marry whites, and coloreds could marry coloreds - neither was excluded because they could not choose to marry each other.

So please tell me how Arizona marriage law is being applied unequally. Are homosexuals being prevented from participating in the marital arranagements recognized by the state of Arizona?

Seems the implication is that because an individual has access to Civil Marriage, that the access of a couple isn't, and cannot be, considered as part of the equation. Again that is not quite correct. Using that logic then the SCOTUS never would have accepted the Loving case. Mr. Loving had access to Civil Marriage with a member of his own race, Mrs. Loving had access to Civil Marriage with members of her own race. The court should have refused the case because neither was denied access to Civil Marriage, yet it was the treatment of the couple that was evaluated by the court and not just that of the individual.

The treatment of the status of the couple is similar in both the cases of anti-miscegenation and anti-same sex statutes because both are based on a biological conditions. Race and gender both being biological. If you don't think biology is the basis of the law, then go back and read the laws - they are all based on gender. For example we can examine Arizona's statute " 25-101. Void and prohibited marriages" which provides that "C. Marriage between persons of the same sex is void and prohibited." - the determining factor is gender and not sexual orientation.



>>>>

Let's allow Thomas Sowell to clarify the confusion on this, since he has already addressed the comparison of homosexual "marriage" and interracial marriage so well, I see no point in trying to come up with all new words for it:

The "equal protection of the laws" provided by the Constitution of the United States applies to people, not actions. Laws exist precisely in order to discriminate between different kinds of actions.

When the law permits automobiles to drive on highways but forbids bicycles from doing the same, that is not discrimination against people. A cyclist who gets off his bicycle and gets into a car can drive on the highway just like anyone else.

* * * * *

Analogies with bans against interracial marriage are bogus. Race is not part of the definition of marriage. A ban on interracial marriage is a ban on the same actions otherwise permitted because of the race of the particular people involved. It is a discrimination against people, not actions.

In other words, while race and sex are both biological, race is not and never has been part of the definition of the word "marriage", but sex has always been the very core of that definition. And however much you might want to pretend people are interchangeable, marrying a member of the opposite sex is NOT the same action as marrying a member of the same sex, any more than riding your bicycle on the freeway is the same action as driving a car there, simply because "they're both vehicles".

 

[WorldWatcher]

But the Constitution doesn't define marriage between a man and a women. So how can the government legally tell two consenting adults who they can marry, especially when you bring in the 14th amendment.

Except that everyone has equal access to marriage laws, since everyone in this country is either male or female. Granted, they may not WANT to make use of those laws, because they don't want to marry someone of the opposite sex, but that doesn't mean they don't have access to them. The only way someone could NOT have access to the marriage laws is if they were some other sex besides male or female.

Is the US Constitution the only set of laws in the country? No? Then that would be how. The Constitution of the State of Arizona, for example, DOES define marriage - as recognized by the state - as being between one man and one woman, since marriage is properly a matter of state law, not federal.

Is there only one set of laws in this Country? No, is the correct answer.

However, ARTICLE XXII of the Arizona Constitution Section 21 says “The Legislature shall enact all necessary laws to carry into effect the provisions of this Constitution.” That means the statutory laws of Arizona are subordinate to the Arizona Constitution because the State Constitution provides the legislature the authority to create such statutory law.

Then there is ARTICLE II of the Arizona Constitution that notes that the United States Constitution is the Supreme law of the land. That is a recognition of the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution (Article VI, para 2) which means that the Arizona Constitution (and the statutory laws subordinate to it) are subordinate to the United States Constitution.

The Fourteenth Amendment has nothing to do with the issue, except insofar as you cannot define a relationship as marriage between one couple and refuse to recognize the exact same relationship as marriage between another couple. A same-sex relationship is NOT "the exact same relationship" as defined by state law as a heterosexual relationship. Feel free to go look at the Arizona Revised Statutes for an example of the defined marital relationship which must be recognized as marriage in all cases.

14 Amendment:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.​

The 14th Amendment provides that a State cannot deny persons under it’s jurisdiction the equal protection of the law. The legal standard though is not that they have to be “the exact same relationship”. If you were to research it you will find that the standard is “similarly situated situations”. In dealing with people you will probably never find people “in the exact same situation” as people are different. They of different races, different ages, live in different parts of the country (or state), have different incomes, some have children some don’t, most will have monogamous relationship some may voluntarily have outside sex partners, some are couples of different religious faiths, some may live together all the time others may have extended periods of separation. That’s why the standard is similar situation.

Now like situated couples, per the topic of Civil Marriage would be law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, non-family, consenting, adults in a different-sex couple who are allowed to Civilly Marry and law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, non-family, consenting, adults in a same-sex couple who are not allowed to Civilly Marry.

When a group is singled out to be excluded from equal treatment under the law, the responsibility rests with the government as to why the discriminatory treatment is allowed as an exemption to the Constitutions Equal Protection clause. The 14th doesn’t address Civil Marriage; it addresses equal treatment for all citizens.

So far I haven’t seen a compelling reason to warrant the different treatment.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

But no class of persons is being excluded. Again, the law does not specify any class of people not allowed to participate in state-recognized marriages, as was the case with interracial marriage bans. You may not CHOOSE to participate in the arrangements recognized by the state as marriages, but that's entirely up to you.

No "class of persons" of persons were being excluded in Civil Marriage in the State of Virginia which prompted the Loving v. Virginia case.

As a matter of fact that same logic, which failed to sway the court, was presented by the State in defense of it's anti-miscegenation law. That logic being that no class was excluded because Civil Marriage was available to each individual. That because whites could marry whites, and coloreds could marry coloreds - neither was excluded because they could not choose to marry each other.

So please tell me how Arizona marriage law is being applied unequally. Are homosexuals being prevented from participating in the marital arranagements recognized by the state of Arizona?

Seems the implication is that because an individual has access to Civil Marriage, that the access of a couple isn't, and cannot be, considered as part of the equation. Again that is not quite correct. Using that logic then the SCOTUS never would have accepted the Loving case. Mr. Loving had access to Civil Marriage with a member of his own race, Mrs. Loving had access to Civil Marriage with members of her own race. The court should have refused the case because neither was denied access to Civil Marriage, yet it was the treatment of the couple that was evaluated by the court and not just that of the individual.

The treatment of the status of the couple is similar in both the cases of anti-miscegenation and anti-same sex statutes because both are based on a biological conditions. Race and gender both being biological. If you don't think biology is the basis of the law, then go back and read the laws - they are all based on gender. For example we can examine Arizona's statute " 25-101. Void and prohibited marriages" which provides that "C. Marriage between persons of the same sex is void and prohibited." - the determining factor is gender and not sexual orientation.



>>>>

Let's allow Thomas Sowell to clarify the confusion on this, since he has already addressed the comparison of homosexual "marriage" and interracial marriage so well, I see no point in trying to come up with all new words for it:

The "equal protection of the laws" provided by the Constitution of the United States applies to people, not actions. Laws exist precisely in order to discriminate between different kinds of actions.

First of all, I can appreciate the appeal to authority, but Thomas Sowell is an economist not a legal scholar. As such his opinions carry the same weight as yours and mine. In other words, in the grand scheme of things, not much.

The only real appeal to authority as to the constitutionality of law that discriminate based on gender in regards to Civil Marriage will be the SCOTUS. Of course to date the Supreme Court has never heard a case and issued a detailed analysis of the constitutionality of denying Civil Marriage based on gender.

When the law permits automobiles to drive on highways but forbids bicycles from doing the same, that is not discrimination against people. A cyclist who gets off his bicycle and gets into a car can drive on the highway just like anyone else.

Of course it’s not discrimination against people. However if the law says that only males may operate an automobile on public highways – well – then that is discriminating against people. Men and women are both people. Even though there are differences between the two, they are like situated and there would be no compelling government interest in denying females the ability to operate an automobile on public highways.

Analogies with bans against interracial marriage are bogus. Race is not part of the definition of marriage. A ban on interracial marriage is a ban on the same actions otherwise permitted because of the race of the particular people involved. It is a discrimination against people, not actions.

In other words, while race and sex are both biological, race is not and never has been part of the definition of the word "marriage", but sex has always been the very core of that definition. And however much you might want to pretend people are interchangeable, marrying a member of the opposite sex is NOT the same action as marrying a member of the same sex, any more than riding your bicycle on the freeway is the same action as driving a car there, simply because "they're both vehicles".

Actually, under our legal system of the past, race was a part of the definition of marriage under the various anti-miscegenation laws which existed because whites and colored were specifically banned from entering into Civil Marriage.

However much you might want to pretend people are not interchangeable, marrying a member of the same sex IS the same action as marrying a member of the opposite sex, because even though motorcycles and cars might be different types of motor vehicles they both have equal access to the highways.

Currently there are 8 States (Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, California, Maryland, New Hampshire, New York, and Vermont) plus Washington, D.C. which recognize Same-sex Civil Marriages in some fashion. Those Civil Marriages in those States ARE the same action and it doesn't matter if the couples are of the same or opposite genders.


>>>>