Of course, the reason that there are handicapped parking spaces, is because there are a limited number of convenient parking spaces.

To the best of my knowledge,there is no limit to the number of marriage licenses that can be granted.

It's a stupid analogy.

(Not to mention, Americans have the right to marry - there is no right for handicapped people to get a special parking space.)

And there he goes again, just blindly saying what I said was false, but giving ABSOLUTELY NO REASON for why it is false.


If one avenue has "consequences", and the other avenue lacks these "consequences", the two ARE NOT EQUAL.
It is stupid to claim otherwise.

If a person robs a liquor store, that "has consequences".
Are we going to pretend that the robber sitting in jail is being treated "equally" to the man who is sitting on his couch at home???
It's stupid!
And not surprising that garysher has undertaken this idiocy.


And marriage would obviously qualify.
It's like saying a law which gives tax breaks to those who worship with a crucifix and not to Jews does not give "positive favoritism" to the Christians.


Absurdity number 1.
DOMA OBVIOUSLY DOES grant favored status to straights.
Straight people have their relationships recognized by the state via "marriage", and gays do not have their relationships likewise recognized.


1) "suspect class" is irrelevant. Equal protection applies REGARDLESS of whether or not a group is a "suspect class".
There is nothing in the 14th amendment specifying it applies only to suspect classes.
2) MARRIAGE is the fundamental right. It is the burden of proof of the state to prove they have a legitimate state interest in the discrimination.
To require that the people prove they have a "right to ..." perform the discriminated against act is inane and pointless. How the heck would you "prove" you have a right to do something that you are not allowed to do?
It's a catch-22...


False, and false.
1) There is ABSOLUTELY NO evidence that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers procreation.
There is ABSOLUTELY NO evidence that allowing gay marriage will in any way harm procreation.
2) ALL the evidence shows that children raised by gays are just as happy and health as children raised by straights.
I also find it amusing that the court wants to enact a policy of encouraging children being raised by "biological parents", yet DIVORCE IS SO DAMN EASY.
We have a 50% divorce rate in this country. Kids are being made the product of split homes each and every day.
And the country's solution to this is to prevent GAYS from getting married?
Come on. Do I really need to point out how stupid this is???


So that's it?

We just CLAIM that the "legislature" has these great goals, and then do ABSOLUTELY NO ANALYSIS to see if what they "legislated" to achieve those goals actually has any hope of doing anything towards those goals?

What a grand system we live in!
I think we should enact legislation for the purpose of saving the planet, ensuring our children are raised in safe homes, and ensuring that the elderly are secure in their retirement.
What does the legislation ACTUALLY do? It prevents gay marriage!

Evidently, we can claim ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING as our goals, and have the legislation have no semblance of doing anything towards those goals, and that's all just fine!

Can you show ANY portion of Florida law which specifies it works on "behavior"?
If a gay man states he is gay, but abstains from any gay sex, he is STILL prohibited from adopting in Florida.

It has nothing to do with "behavior".


And once again, garysher blindly claims there is no similarity, and gives ABSOLUTELY NO EXPLANATION as to why there is no similarity.


These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
Loving v Virginia.

MARRIAGE itself is stated as the "fundamental right".
Insisting that it is only "one man and one woman" which is the fundamental right is an attempt to define away the discrimination to avoid justifying it.


The REAL standard was applied and not this false chasing the cart with the horse.
The question was asked as to whether or not the DISCRIMINATION WAS JUSTIFIED.
Here, the court is trying to insist that gays prove they have a right that they have always been denied. NO discriminatory practice can survive that idiotic test. It's a catch-22.


Not word spinning.
I responded DIRECTLY to what they ACTUALLY said.
They didn't claim "gays cannot procreate => cannot marry". That is YOUR word spinning.

And furthermore, no "couple" with a woman over the age of 60 will ever procreate.
So why grant THAT "partnership" the same status as marriage?

"In arguing that the definition is overinclusive, plaintiffs point out that many opposite-sex couples cannot have or do not want to have children. How can it be rational, they ask, to permit these couples, but not same-sex couples, to marry?

The question is not a difficult one to answer. While same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples are easily distinguished, limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples likely to have children would require grossly intrusive inquiries, and arbitrary and unreliable line-drawing.



A legislature that regarded marriage primarily or solely as an institution for the benefit of children could rationally find that an attempt to exclude childless opposite-sex couples from the institution would be a very bad idea."
NY Court of Appeals July 2006

1) Using crack is illegal.
Being gay is not.
2) You just changed the subject. I acknowledge SOME prohibitions on adoption revolve around behavior.
The point is that the law forbidding GAY ADOPTION does not revolve around behavior.
If a gay man was celibate, he still could not adopt.
If a straight man had sex with other males, he still COULD adopt.


Even then you won't. You'll just continue to claim that "we" have already done something you never have.
The analogy is that it is STILL DISCRIMINATION to discriminate against a characteristic of the issue, while the "name itself" is not named in the discrimination.
If I state that anybody who worships with a cross is subject to jail and fines, THAT would be discrimination against Christians. It doesn't matter that I haven't explicitly "named" Christian, the point of the discrimination is still obvious.
When you state that gay marriage is precluded, you have shown discrimination AGAINST gay relationships, and the gays who form them, and preference for straight relationships and the straights who form them.


Again, this is the cart leading the horse.
We could just as accurately claim that in 1968, it was "understood" that the right of marriage involved a woman and a man of the same race.
In fact, more people "understood" that then today "understand" that marriage is just man/woman.

Claims of "understood" are just a mechanism to implicitly ASSUME the discrimination as justified, without having any courage to show LEGITIMATELY WHY they are justified.


The standard I have laid out proves this false.
NO woman over 60 can reproduce.
Date of birth IS REQUIRED for marriage licenses.

Ergo, I ask again WHY are women over 60 able to reproduce?

Furthermore, if it is reasonable to prevent people who cannot procreate from marrying, why do we allow people who have PURPOSELY STERILIZED themselves to marry?
Isn't that fraud???

Why do we allow people who have NEVER procreated to pretend they are married?
Isn't that obvious fraud?


"regard marriage primarily or solely as an institution for the benefit of children"...

OMG! HERE we are AGAIN!
It was pointed out the other day that people who are worried about the "sanctity" of marriage often say the damndest things that DESTROY THE FUNDAMENTAL IDEAS of what marriage is about.

You'll note, no mention of "love" is made here...
How "sanctified"...


Furthermore, claims that marriage is about "children" are inherently disingenuous and false.
Legal Marriage is in NO WAY enhanced if a child is present. No additional benefits to married people with children via the marriage license.
Also, there are no penalties to married people WITHOUT children.

All the OVER 1,000 rights and privileges that have been set up for straight couples are COMPLETELY DEVOID of any benefit or penalty regarding children.

To claim that marriage is about "children" is just as false as to claim "voting" requires reading.

Except handicapped parking HAS a legitimate state interest.
Excluding gays from marriage does not.

You're speaking in technicalities. The truth is, while homosexuals do have the option of marriage available to them, a restriction exists which stops gay people from using marriage in any fashion that they'd ever want to use it.

Furthermore, this restriction is designed for the sole purpose of preventing homosexuals from marrying.

It's like if I said, "Everyone is free to engage in religious worship, so long as that worship doesn't involve Christianity. You're still free to be Christian, and you can still worship if you're Christian, you just have to worship a non-Christian God." For all intents and purposes, I've denied Christians the freedom to worship. Sure, Christians can worship Buddah, but realistically, they'd never want to do that. This restriction treats Christians unfairly, and I'm only able to say "everyone has the freedom to worship" because of a technicality.

In the same fashion, while everyone is free to engage in marriage, our marriage laws include a restriction which effectively stops homosexuals from using it. This restriction is unfair, it effectively denies marriage to gay people, and it makes gay people inferior.

You and I both know this to be true, and no amount of word games is going to excuse treating gay people as inferior.

The DMV DOES have a restriction which exists for the sole purpose of denying driving licences to the blind. And because of that, blind people are treated as inferior to people with sight.

However, I can JUSTIFY that inferiority: A blind person is obviously a danger to everyone if he is allowed to drive a car, because a blind person would not be able to see where he is going.

You see, it is okay to treat people as inferior, but ONLY if there is a really good reason for it. There is no good reason to treat gay people as inferior.

You and I are absolutely denied the benefit of a handicapped parking permit. How can you say otherwise? Handicapped parking is a benefit, and you and I are denied it. There is no debating this.

Handicapped people are treated as superior. But again, I can JUSTIFY treating them as superior. Handicapped people have special disadvantages that make it difficult for them to travel longer distances, and in order to accomodate for these disadvantages, we give them closer parking spaces.

Again, the inferiority of non-handicapped people is ONLY OKAY BECAUSE THERE IS A REALLY GOOD REASON FOR IT.

You have not cleared things up. The argument that "gay people have equal access to marriage" is nothing but a word game. We both know who is affected by the restiction on same-sex marriage.

Further, your examples of blind people and handicapped people are indeed examples of one group being treated as inferior. But there is a justification for this inferiority.

So I ask again, how do you justify treating gay people as inferior?