Technically you said they're "entitles" to equality, but I think you meant entitled
Ah ok. I think I get your argument now. Adding on more marriages which have the same divorce rate wouldn't increase the divorce rate (it would still be 50%), although you're right it would increase the number of divorces.
But, your arguments about why divorces are bad all rely on the notion that there are children involved. A childless marriage wouldn't trigger the consequences you're listing of divorce, so they're irrelevant. So, we're just talking about marriages with children, which you say you support for both same and opposite sex couples. So if you don't want divorces because they hurt the children, and you go from there to saying you don't want marriages because they can end in divorce, then what exactly are you looking for? No children? Or single parents only? Seems like your argument has kind of worked itself into a corner that doesn't make much sense.
Yes! I look forward to the day this is not even an "issue".
the government needs to be out of marriage.
separation of church and state rings a bell ?
I think he just means that in his opinion it would be superior if government did not give any specific privileges to couples because marriage has traditionally been in religion for the vast majority of religions.
Equal protection of the law is a constitutional right. Marriage is a form of protection the law offers, so it is constitutionally required that it be applied equally regardless of sexual orientation.
What about minority housing grants?
Am I correct that your argument is that housing grants targetting minorities violate equal protection, therefore we shouldn't apply equal protection in the case of gay marriage either?
If so, that logic is flawed. If we are violating the constitution in one case, that doesn't mean we should just throw away the whole thing, it means we should aim to correct the case where we are violating it.
But, what minority housing grants are you referring to? I'm not aware of any government program that gives housing grants on the basis of race. Can you name the specific program or provide a link to a governmental site detailing it?
UNCF came to mind. Not my point though so I'll let him argue it.
The United Negro College Fund isn't a government program, so, how does that relate to the equal protection clause?
Abortion and interracial marriage are still an issues, you'll be waiting a long time.
It is funny how whenever liberals want something immoral, they claim it to be a precious constitutional right...even though the Constitution doesn't bestow rights, it is simply a check on governmental power. :lol:
It is funny how whenever liberals want something immoral, they claim it to be a precious constitutional right...even though the Constitution doesn't bestow rights, it is simply a check on governmental power. :lol:
They receive government funding.
Or are you ok with, say, the Boy Scouts discriminating while receiving government funding?
I don't think that's true. Do you have a source for that? Could be that they middleman stafford loans and whatnot or something, but I do not believe that the government is giving them any funding to help pay for scholarships that are given out on the basis of race. On their website they say they are funded solely through charitable contributions of individuals, foundations and corporations. The Foundation Center, which studies and rates various charities, says the same. Do you have evidence to the contrary?
Ok, this is just getting silly. That has nothing to do with the topic of whether prohibiting gay marriage violates equal protection.
Is the government's refusal on recognizing gay marriage a valid exercise of government power?
It had to do with organizations being allowed to discriminate while receiving public funds.
the government needs to be out of marriage.
separation of church and state rings a bell ?
Generally speaking I'd say I'm against organizations being allowed to discriminate while receiving public funds, but there are always exceptions I guess. Like having boyscouts only allow boys and girl scouts only girls doesn't bother me... I would think that would be an example of where separate is not unequal because there is no implied inferiority of either group by having them separate. Although I have to admit, when I was a kid the boy scouts at my school did way, way, cooler stuff than the girl scouts... Like we'd go on a four day canoeing/camping trip and they girl scouts would meet up somewhere and learn to knit for an hour... Probably just a lame girl scout leader though.
So after all that about Brown-v-Board of Ed, you actually DO support 'separate-but-equal' on a case by case basis
If the Girl-Scouts wanted to, they could do everything the Boy-Scouts did, and only the name would be different.
Why a different name? (because you asked 'why not just call civil unions 'marriage' also if they have the same rights) '. Well, the name describes who's in it. "Marriage" is 2 people becoming one flesh, ie; raising children. Civil Union is merely 2 people sharing financial resources.
They are different yet equal under the law, even if unequal in public opinion.
I explained the standard from Brown v Board of Ed. They ruled that separate was inherently unequal because there was a perception that a graduate from a black-only school was inferior to a graduate from a white-only school. So, the black students were being disadvantaged by the school segregation. I don't see how the same thing would apply to scouting.
But, regardless, mostly I just don't really see anybody being hurt by the division between boy and girl scouts, where I do see that people would be hurt by school segregation or making a big deal about how gay people can only get 'civil unions' whereas straight people can 'marry'. Culturally the term marriage is endowed with all sorts of positive connotations and whatnot. Excluding gays from that seems discriminatory to me. That said, to me, the name is a relatively minor issue. If they got civil unions that were really exactly the same, I'd be thrilled.
Keep in mind that Brown only apples to education, and nothing else at all.
buffs