All while ignoring other protected classes whoes relationships are not otherwise harmful, like marital status. If the 14th applies to one, it applies to all, and since the marriage reform movement isn't addressing them all, the 14th applies to non.
I'm not passionate enough to say I'm in favor. I would say I'm indifferent, but in all fairness if someone said they were indifferent to abortion we would call them pro-choice, so if you want to call me pro-polygamy then go right ahead.
Marital status is a protected class, and what's more is polygamy is bonefied religious practice in many places, thus I would say a ban of polygamy is twice as discriminatory as a ban on SSM. That the 'equality' meme doesn't address such relationships demonstrates that SSM is not about equality at all. This is just a wedge issue.
I think you mean that's not how SCOTUS works. I think the average American would be a mixture of impressed and horrified to learn how SCOTUS works. Did you know they figured out a way to extend their authority onto other countries? It's a nice trick, truly.
An Amendment to the Constitution on marriage would bump that up to Strict Scrutiny, but alas marriage is not a constitutional right like it should be, and it seems the 'equality' movement has no interest in Due Process. I hope SCOTUS rules against SSM like they ruled against women's right to vote so that we can do what we should have don at the very beginning: make an Amendment regarding marriage.
We tried and failed. Native Americans need to clean up the rez before their polygamy case will be hard by the state. Until then, there are to many targets of opportunity in the real-life examples of polygamy on the rez to make it a viable movement.
You won't hear me bringing up any of that nonsense.
See, being 'equal' isn't easy. So no marriage for atheists? Are you saying atheists can't have the same level of reverence and respect for the union as 'believers' might? :mrgreen: And what if you're Muslim? Muslims don't attend 'church', and neither do Buddhists. They attend 'temple'. But what about Wiccans? They don't attend any specific building at all; more often than not it's any coven member's living room or a bonfire out in the middle of nowhere.
Yes. The people who banned it, and the people who took it to court instead of just removing the banners from office and replacing them with legislators who would do their job correctly.
And amendment would acomplish that properly.
A SSM ban is not gender/sex discrimination because each sex can do what the other can do. Neither sex has any special privilege the other sex lacks. The right is to marry someone of the opposit sex. It was never a right of a man to marry a woman with the right of a woman to marry a man. Its a right of everyone to marry someone of the opposit sex, of the age of magirity, who is of sound mind. Neither sex ever had any right to marry the same sex primeraly because homosexuality itself is a birth defect to begin with.