It goes beyond that. His entire argument goes down in flames before the Right to Pursuit of Happiness, and the Equal Protection clause. Screw property rights and tax advantages, this is about one of the three most basic human rights that form the basis of American Democracy, and for this group of people, it is clearly and illegally denied to them by the majority. Gays are prevented by law from sharing their life with the person they love. I am not. I have the God-given right to the Pursuit of Happiness, in our most basic founding document it says it in black and white, in what is probably the most resounding sentence in human history: I have an unalienable, natural right, granted by my Creator, not by government, to pursue my own destiny, my own happiness. So do they. Bigots say they do not, with absolutely no basis in law. That is illegal under the US Constitution, and the only exception to it is if The State can show it has a clear and compelling reason to prevent gays from enjoying that right. Skid Roe is afraid to argue that point, because he knows he is wrong. Billy Bob throws red herrings out by the bucketful because he is terrified of arguing on that point. I dare either one of them to give one single clear and compelling reason why this group of people should be denied the right to share a happy and purposeful life with the one they love in a union protected by a legal contract they have entered into. One reason. One reason why bigots have a right to dictate to gays and to tell them that they cannot enter into a legal contract when it harms them in no way. One reason.

*smacks forehead* How could I forget it's a conscious choice? Guess I'd better make some different choices

__________________
1982 300SD 180K, rebuilt engine
1973 450SLC Megasquirt
1990 Volvo 780 - 273k
1993 Volvo 240 Wagon - Scrap yard slumber

http://www.fuelly.com/sig-us/44619.png

I believe it is telling that when a post responds specifically to a request for examples . . . that the requesting party ignores or disparages a legitimate response. In other words, someone can't handle the truth.

When "sodomy" was decriminalized, the state, aka government, lost its compelling state interest in denying same sex couples a state issued and sanctioned license which confers state sponsored benefits and responsibilities. When it was a criminal act, the state interest in not promoting criminal activity was clear.

Note, that the rights and benefits are only those which are conferred by the state. If a particular church or private organization does not want to extend membership to same sex couples or civil unions, they would be well within their rights to do so.

"The evidence shows that the movement of marriage away from a gendered institution and toward an institution free from state-mandated gender roles reflects an evolution in the understanding of gender rather than a change in marriage. The evidence did not show any historical purpose for excluding same-sex couples from marriage, as states have never required spouses to have an ability or willingness to procreate in order to marry. FF 21. Rather, the exclusion exists as an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage. That time has passed."

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/09cv2292/

__________________
1982 300SD 180K, rebuilt engine
1973 450SLC Megasquirt
1990 Volvo 780 - 273k
1993 Volvo 240 Wagon - Scrap yard slumber

http://www.fuelly.com/sig-us/44619.png

My read on it is that there are certain legal distinctions between married and unmarried people when it comes to property rights and such. Those distinctions are unambiguous and not in doubt. Even the lawyers defending Prop 8 would admit that. Then there are other legal distinctions of the sort you mention. I hope that your constitutional analysis is correct about those distinctions, but I believe that there can be a good faith difference of opinion on them. I am not saying that the human rights you mention are less important than property rights and such. I am just saying that there is room for argument.

Upon further thought ...you are gay and your rabbits turn out to be gay. Hmmmm I am now of the opinion your rabbits learned it from you You really should have been more careful in front of the young-ins'.

__________________
Sent from an agnostic abacus

2014 C250 21,XXX my new DD ** 2013 GLK 350 18,000 Wife's new DD**

- With out god, life is everything.
- God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance that's getting smaller and smaller as time moves on..." Neil DeGrasse Tyson
- You can pray for me, I'll think for you.
- When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

The simple and straightforward "solution" is to get the states out of the "marriage license" business. If the state wants to confer benefits and rights to encourage citizens to enter into familial relationships, then civil unions/domestic partnerships should be the offering to all. What legitimate interest does the state have in what the license is called if the rights conferred are the same?

That must be what happened. The ignorance of some people is baffling, isn't it?

Come to think of it my old boss, who is a lesbian, raised three kids and guess what?! They're all.............................straight! Recruting foiled again!

(I think you are making fun of others views on things, but I could be mistaken. It's difficult to figure out someone's tone via text )

__________________
1982 300SD 180K, rebuilt engine
1973 450SLC Megasquirt
1990 Volvo 780 - 273k
1993 Volvo 240 Wagon - Scrap yard slumber

http://www.fuelly.com/sig-us/44619.png

This is exactly the only correct approach, unfortunately unequivically rejected by gay marriage proponents. The issue has never been and is not now a question of rights denied, it has always been an effort to equate "playing house together" with the heterosexual institution of marriage as a means of forcing the society at large to affirm and validate homosexuality as no different than hetrosexuality.

No, I believe that both sides jointly reject my proposal, which leads me to believe that it must be logical.

Seriously, separate but equal has never worked.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MTI
The simple and straightforward "solution" is to get the states out of the "marriage license" business. If the state wants to confer benefits and rights to encourage citizens to enter into familial relationships, then civil unions/domestic partnerships should be the offering to all. What legitimate interest does the state have in what the license is called if the rights conferred are the same?


Correct.

Incorrect.

Incorrect.

__________________
On some nights I still believe that a car with the fuel gauge on empty can run about fifty more miles if you have the right music very loud on the radio. - HST

1983 300SD - 305000
1984 Toyota Landcruiser - 190000
1994 GMC Jimmy - 203000

https://media.giphy.com/media/X3nnss8PAj5aU/giphy.gif

I have utterly no idea how he draws conclusions like that.

My guess is with a crayon....

__________________
On some nights I still believe that a car with the fuel gauge on empty can run about fifty more miles if you have the right music very loud on the radio. - HST

1983 300SD - 305000
1984 Toyota Landcruiser - 190000
1994 GMC Jimmy - 203000

https://media.giphy.com/media/X3nnss8PAj5aU/giphy.gif

Now you two make a lovely couple, the only question is, who's pitching and who's catching.

^ no answer to post #91