Indeed. Discrimination based on animus has no defense.
Except that it isn't animus but instead concern for state's sovereignty in their interest in incentivizing the best formative environment for its wards (children's wellbeing). Children thrive best with a mother and a father. Many situations arise where children are not raised in that best environment, like single parenthood, polygamy and kids even in rare cases being raised by wolves. But that doesn't mean a state must be forced to use children as guinea pigs by incentivizing these lesser scenarios "as married".
That sentiment has absolutely nothing to do with animus. I'm sure that 99% of the population could give a crap one way or the other what the cult of LGBTers are up to. It's when they want to role-play "mom and dad" to kids in marriage (kids are the most important people in marriage and cannot vote to affect their surroundings) that people have a problem with it.
People caring about kids having a mom and dad in their everyday lives is not equal to animus. LGBT false premise #392, exposed...
Incorrect.
The sole motivation behind measures seeking to deny same-sex couples their right to equal protection of the law is animus – an unwarranted fear and hatred of gay Americans; you reaffirm this fact with every one of your posts.
In order to deny gay Americans their right to access marriage law as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment, the state must demonstrate there exists a rational basis for the prohibition, that there is objective, documented evidence in support of the prohibition, and that the prohibition pursues a proper legislative end.
Measures seeking to deny gay Americans access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in fail to meet these three fundamental legal criteria.
Seeking to disadvantage gay Americans predicated on fear and hate is not rational.
There is no objective, documented evidence indicating that disallowing gay Americans to access marriage law 'benefits' society in any way – there is no objective, documented evidence that children raised in a home with same-sex parents are at a greater 'disadvantage' than children who live in a home with a single parent or parents of the opposite-sex.
Marriage is not solely about procreation because infertile opposite-sex couples are allowed to marry.
And that marriage has 'traditionally' been between a man and a woman is not a valid justification because something perceived to be 'traditional' is not a legitimate reason to deny citizens their rights. Moreover, given the fact that the doctrine of coverture is no longer part of any state's marriage law, marriage is currently a contract of commitment between to consenting adult partners recognized by the state, same- or opposite-sex, it makes no difference.
Last, seeking to deny gay Americans their right to equal protection of the law pursues no proper legislative end, such measures seek only to make homosexuals different from everyone else, which the 14th Amendment prohibits the states from doing (
Romer v. Evans (1996)).
Like most conservatives you fear change and disdain diversity and expressions of individual liberty; you incorrectly perceive allowing gay Americans to marry as somehow being 'detrimental' to society, and are willing to use the canard of 'state's rights' as a facade behind which you hide your unwarranted fear and contempt of gay Americans.
But the Constitution and its case law is about confronting fear and hate, it's about fulfilling the Framers' intent that citizens be subject solely to the rule of law, not men – as men are incapable of ruling justly; measures seeking to deny gay Americans their right to equal protection of the law are proof of that.
