Quote:
Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser
I laugh at the whole "The government shouldn't be involved in marriage" BS. Fine. Let's remove the government privileges granted by marriage and watch just how many gays and lesbians want to be wed (The answer? Not many). Of course they want the government involved: They just want it on their terms.
Anywho, marriage is not a "right" nor is it an act of God. It's a social construct created by society for society and thusly regulated by society. Denying gays and lesbians the right to marry is no different than banning persons from marrying on account of age, number of partners wanting to be wed to, consanguinity or even species. And, before someone says it, gay marriage is not equatable to interracial marriage. Anti-miscegenation denied a specific group of men and woman (Blacks) a right afforded to another group of men and women (Whites). Neither gays nor lesbians are being denied any "rights", as no man nor woman currently is allowed to marry about man or woman, respectively. If a certain group of gays and lesbians were allowed to marry yet another group of gays and lesbians weren't, you might have a case. But they aren't. So you don't. You can't claim discrimination over a "right" no one has.
(Yup. I'm late to the party. Sue me.)
|
Really? You're going to cite a 27 yr old Mn case as legal precedent? Anyone could easily go back a couple years from then and find any number of cases that prove no one has the right to engage in interracial marriage, laws known as antimiscegenation laws such as Loving V. Virginia (1958.) Since no one had that right, at the time, to engage in interracial marriage, no one could have claimed discrimination then either? In 1967 16 states were finally forced (by the SCOTUS over turning Loving V. Virginia) to remove such laws.
So there's that hole in your logic. Plus I don't even know what this means-
Quote:
Neither gays nor lesbians are being denied any "rights", as no man nor woman currently is allowed to marry about man or woman, respectively.
|