Not in the context of marriage, as far as I know, but if that is true, please link to the case. And I agree. Gay marriage harms no one.That's incorrect. The California Supreme Court cited many decisions to support their contention that sexual orientation is a suspect criteria for discrimination. Though again, I care more about who is being harmed. Gay marriage harms nobody.
And all of this is irrelevant without law on the books that supports it. Enacting new law is appropriate for the route you are going, but this is an uphill battle because there is nothing shows that the government has a vested interest in couple marrying because "they want to". You must have some reason that can be presented that gives cause for the government to support it.No, the Constitution is written in such a way that limits what sorts of laws can stand up in court. In order to challenge a law, people have to be wronged in some way. Being denied the legal ability to marry who you want who also wants to marry you is being wronged. In some cases, this is secondary to some other interest. But in the case of gay marriage, the only party with any real stake in the matter are the gays who want to get married. Nobody is being wronged by the gay marriage in a way that counters the interests of the gay couples.
Again, your argument lacks merit, standing, and support. Laws were on the books that allowed men to marry women. Discrimination was easily identified when a black MAN wanted to marry a white WOMAN or vise versa. Plenty of precedence and old law just needed to be modified. Here, discrimination applied, as the concept of marriage was already established as man-woman. What we are talking about is NEW law, that needs a different kind of support. Discrimination doesn't cut it. Gays are not being prevented from marrying.I already explained why that doesn't make sense. Denying a group of people the right to marry at all was not what anti-miscegenation laws were about, or anti-SSM marriage laws are about. Blacks could get married, they just couldn't marry Whites. Whites could get married, they just couldn't marry Blacks. Everybody could get married, but they're SOL if they happen to like the wrong person. Putting arbitrary restrictions on rights robs those rights of any meaning. Suppose somebody told you that you can marry, but you have to marry a specific kind of person regardless of whether you like them or not. Would you be able to meaningfully exercise your right to marry? Of course not.
And of course I would be allowed to marry and marry meaningfully.
I want to kill someone, so I have a contract with someone to do that for me. There is no legality that supports this, just as there is no legality that supports man-man marriage, nor woman-woman marriage. In order to enact this, a different angle must be used. Showing how gay marriage benefits the government, society, AND the couple and any family they may choose to have bypasses all of the pot holes that those for GM keep encountering."want to" is consent. Informed consent is CENTRAL to contracts.
And there are no laws on the books for either. But if it could be shown how marrying one's dog was beneificial to the government, socieity, and couple/family a case could be made. Since it can't, it would not be allowed. Your issue here is that you are looking at this from a moral/emotional standpoint. I am pro-GM. However, winning this position will NOT be on moral/emotional grounds. It will be on legal grounds. The discrimination position has far to many holes. The government/society/couple/family benefit argument, in as far as enacting new law can win and win easily.The dog argument is not comparable, because a dog is mentally incapable of comprehending a marriage contract. And without comprehending a contract, meaningful consent cannot be given. Adult lesbians, however, obviously can consent to contracts.
Of course I did. Easily.You didn't even come close to shredding it.
That's the point I've been trying to make with you. They won't. Which is precisely why you cannot argue from this position. This is why the discrimination argument and "marrying because I want to" argument will not work. Anti-GM folks, most of them at least, could care less about caring about the feelings of gays. The way around this is the government/society/couple/family benefit argument.Love is only one possible motive. It's presence isn't necessary, I was just hoping that those against gay marriage would learn to have empathy for other people.
Of course the government is set up to look after it's own interests. This may not be direct, mostly, but it is certainly indirect in nearly all things. The government is not going to do something that harms it...that would make no sense, since harming the government harms the people.The government isn't set up to look after it's own interests, but that of the people. Since nobody has a tangible stake against gay marriage, there is no basis to deny gay marriage. The purpose of marriage is not only to benefit society. We don't subject marriages to a test to check to see if it would benefit society. The relevant criteria is that both people consent to the contract, and provided that contract doesn't harm anybody there is no basis to deny it.
And marriage benefits society. There is plenty of research that supports that. This is why proving that gay marriage benefits society (of which there is plenty of research that supports this) will win this issue. Easily.