Mariposa said:
I'm not sure where any of you are going with this, and I'm sober
The motion, here, is to "preserve the sanctity of marriage" which is a complete and total farce onto itself.
If gay people can't get "married" - marriage preserves its sanctity.
So - again - I have to ask what straight person holds the patent on the term marriage, which, with valid standing and legitimate claim to the term "marriage," prevents its use from any non-straight person.
If marriage is a fundamental right (and it has been ruled such) that is equally possessed by everyone, both men and women, then the right to marry a man is equal to the right to marry a woman.
There is no difference.
And - according to the Cali Constitution - sexual discrimination is illegal.
If the right to marry a man is vested in a woman, denying a man this right is illegal (See Title 18 Chapter 13 Sections 241 and 242 of the U.S. Code).
If the right to marry a woman is vested in a man, denying a woman this right is illegal - under the same statutes.
Getting stuck on terminiology is ludicrois.
And the MOB RULE comment (wherever it was) was 100% accurate...
Mob rule, lead by ignorance and fear, causes minorities to suffer needlessly.
And everyone is a part of the minority on SOME issue at SOME time.
So with democracy, everyone loses.
Which is why America isn't a democracy...
And the fundamental argument -
WHAT is the difference between a RIGHT and a PRIVILEGE?
If marriage is a right (again, it's been ruled as such), how can the state create privileges for people that get married that deprive non-married people of equal protection under the laws?
How can the government PUNISH people who are NOT married by siphoning greater amounts off their income, and other means of coercing people into a contract they may not make without governmental intervention?
The powers of government are derived from the rights of the people - not superior to those rights.
Do YOU have the right to prohibit me from entering into a consensual contract with anyone (other than yourself or your children under the age of 18)?
If not, then you have no say in whom I wish to marry.
It's none of your business, you have no standing, no RIGHT to intervene - and therefore have no RIGHT through which you can grant the PRIVILEGE of intervention to the state.
What is the difference between a right and a privilege?
You have to start there if you're ever going to solve 80%+ of "the issues" in today's society.