- Joined
- Jan 25, 2013
- Messages
- 36,996
- Reaction score
- 17,941
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Because I don't believe that current marriage laws protect based on gender. As I've already highlighted in this thread, current marriage laws prohibit women from doing something that men can do. Similarly, current marriage laws prohibit men from doing something that women can do.
That's not really an argument. Going "I don't think that it should be done on that basis" isn't actually offering a counter to any of the points I've made, it's just saying "I disagree because I disagree".
It is UNQUESTIONABLE that the law discriminates on the basis of gender. It is unquestionable that the law allows a man to do something a woman can't do, and allows a woman to do something a man can't do. So the question is whether or not there is an argument that such discrimination is substantially related to an important state interest. Going "Well, I don't think it should be judged on that factor" isn't actually an argument against anything I'm saying nor counters my earlier claim that I personally have not seen a legitimate argument justifying the discrimination based on gender....rather, it's simply an attempt to ignore the issue.
Zyph, the fact that a gay man can marry a straight woman and a straight man can marry a gay woman (if that's your entire point) and so SSM is an EPC Constitutional right may be a novel argument to make but are you sure you want to make it as the foundation of the fight against SSM ban?
Think about the implications.