greeney2 wrote:Please show where the US Constitution mentions marriage at all. This comes under the US Constitution leaving states to self govern.
Precisely my point. It's not prohibited by the most fundamental set of laws vis a vis the constitution. States are allowed to self govern, yes. That's the tenth amendment. Since gay marriage isn't prohibited by the federal constitution, anyone who takes a law suit far enough will eventually hit the supreme court who would be forced to look at the letter and spirit of the constitution. Discrimination based on sexual orientation will eventually be seen as unconstitutional, just as the Jim Crow laws were.
Why is it discrimination when the California Constitution also states California may amend its State Constitution with a 50% vote, which was done. This was an amendment to define marriage. Every kind of licence or certification has rules, from dog licences to professional positions. Every checkbox on a application isn't discrimination, just like your application to be a teacher.
Pfft. If 50% of voters voted in favor of slavery would that make slavery OK?
When (not if, but when) defense of marriage laws are challenged at a high enough level, they will eventually be seen for what they are: discrimination based on sexual preference.
The voters spoke in accordance with the California State Constitution, just like they have many times before, like Prop 13. Was that discrimination against future home buyers who were taxed higher? The courts said NO,they backed to Constitution to amend by 50%! In view of that, prior attempts to redefine marriage failed becasue the same State Supreme Court, ruled gays previously were not discriminated against, because of the laws of civil unions and other laws protecting gay people. Nobody challenged that to be allowed. When a vote in the court is 4-3, 3 judges sided with the will of the people, one judge difference is not overwhelming. Boiling it down to simple discrimination is boloney, just like you challenging the sign on bathroom doors. That the womans bathroom discriminates against men. Or restraunts should allow adults to eat off the childs menu, isn't discrimination. That you are not allowed in ladies rooms, and visa versa, and the only difference is genitals, so whats your point?
Wow, you are deeply in denial that you discriminate, huh? You can bring up anything you want but we're talking about marriage here. Requiring one penis and one vagina in order to get married is going to be hard (no pun intended) to justify in the long (again, no pun intended) run.
Don't think I'm not noticing that you have presented absolutely zero reason why gay marriage should be illegal. That the voters might support it, again, doesn't make it right or even consistent with existing law.