AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.
Race =/= sexuality (and it's also a far stretch to try and link upholding traditional marriage to gender discrimination too). It's just like the anti-SSM people wanting to link SSM to polygamy and bestiality or all other kinds of strawmans.
Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
If there's a god, damn it she won't mind.
If there's a god, baby she won't mind.
this changes nothing and just further proves why those amendments are wrong and are going to fail and that this is factually an equal rights issue.
2.) all meaningless and nothing but false opinions.
again all the same illogical arguments that were used to deny rights for minorities, slavery, women and interracial marriage. You are not helping yourself only exposing your failed argument.
the default rule of law was the definition of a man was WHITE man, the default definition of who can vote was NOT A WOMAN etc etc etc
it was all about discrimination, ignorance, denying of equal/human. civil rights and or bigotry then and that remains true today.
Like i said you are free to write all those law makers and judges and tell them they are wrong and that you want discrimination against gays legal. Maybe they will listen.
WHats great about this country though is that you are free to have that opinion and voice that opinion, again no matter how many facts prove you wrong.
also equating gays wanting equal rights to bestiality severely uneducated about the topic and highly offensive but hey, then again so is telling people they cant have equal rights.
1: SSM can very easily be stated in terms of equal rights. Most simply, woman have a right you do not, which is to marry men. Likewise you have a right women do not, which is to marry women. You are both unequal in that respect, and the court in Loving v Virginia threw out the argument that since you can both denied a group to marry it is equal. Kinda a two wrongs do not make it right kinda thing. Further, you as a straight man have a right gays do not, to marry some one of the gender you are primarily attracted to. Since marriage is recognized as a fundamental right in this country, the state needs to have a justification to do this. How good a justification is up for debate yet since no court to my knowledge has specifically ruled on that aspect. However, no court has to my knowledge found such a justification yet for any level of judicial review.
2: Equal rights extends to far more than just those things you mention. For example equal rights extends to such areas as employment, military service, rights to a trial, and so on and so forth.
3: SSM legality does not impose it on others, any more than allowing interracial marriages imposed those on others. You will not have to marry a dude, or some one of another race. But you could!
4: Traditional marriage in this country has been all over the place, and since common law is the basis for our judicial system, it gets even more all over the place. Further, tradition is not a legitimate reason legally to deny rights. It is a failed argument legally, and a logical fallacy.
5: You are correct that race =/= orientation. However, there are enough similarities that we can look at Loving v Virgina as a guide to see how SSM fits in legally. We have to be careful of taking the comparison too far(this is where the bestiality/polyamory people go wrong) and SSM has to stand on it's own merits, but you also cannot say that they are in no way alike. Both race and orientation are innate aspects of a person. Both are seemingly unchangeable. Neither are innately harmful. And so on. The issue in terms of SSM is whether the differences are enough to make Loving v Virginia no longer be a guide in terms of legality. This is made further complex by this last point:
6: SSM is not exclusively about orientation. There is currently no check to prevent a gay person from marrying some one of the opposite sex in any state in the union. And SSM won't check orientation either. If a straight person chooses to marry some one of the same sex or a gay person chooses to marry some one of the opposite sex, there is nothing to stop them. Orientation is not the determining factor in whether some one can get married in any state. Gender is. Stated with ban SSM ban marriages based on gender, not orientation. In no way can you discount this in any argument about SSM. While you cannot divorce the orientation aspect from SSM, orientation is not what the law limits in terms of marriage, gender is.
So anyway...meh, I think this only rates about a .5 on the Zyphlin scale(he will get the other reference in that comparison tho~). The point in this is that simple dismissal of complex issues rarely work. SSM bans are different from miscegination laws. That does not make mean that the comparison is entirely inaccurate. However, SSM does have to stand or fall on it's own merits, just as polyamory will have to and any other form of marriage people decide they want. Where you and others, including many in favor of SSM, go wrong is that you don't seem to understand where the legal arguments lie. To deny a right, the state has to have legitimate reason to deny it. That is where the beginning and ending of any argument involving SSM should lie: in whether there is a legitimate benefit to the state for not allowing SSM. Without that, SSM is a shoe in from a legal standpoint.