The law regarding marriages, as its currently created, is unconstitutional due to the discrimination it places upon gender that does not meet the required levels of scrutiny to justify such discrimination under the EPC. Therefore, Civil Unions...not marriages...are the more constitutional form of coupling we have in this country. Due to those two fats, coupled with the issue of seperation of church and state and the dual definitions of the word marriage, it is most constitutional and beneficial for the country to reject the unconstitutional form of coupling we currently have and instead focus solely on the constitutional form, leaving the word marriage and that ceremony as something purely within the private sector.But the very first question I would ask if I was trying to argue discrimination is WHY was it changed? And any answer that didnt involve "because gays wanted to get married and some religious people cried loud enough to get the law changed" or because "some overly religious people cried so loud the government made a compromise based on them not wanting gays using the term marriage (even though marriage does NOT have to do with religion) so they changed it" would be pretty much dishonest.
You can't say anyone is being "Discriminated" against in that. The only thing you could say is that religious people could claim they are being "discriminated against" because they can't have the government recognize their term "marriage" anymore...but the government never dealt with religious marriage anyways in reality, so that's rather weak, and additionally for it to be discrimination it would need to be shown that somehow the government IS recognizing other peoples religious coupling, which it wouldn't be. They could claim its "discrimination" because they're the government won't call it marriage anymore, but again, for it to be discrimination someone else would have to be having it called marriage...that's not the case, no one would be.
Sure, people could MAKE the argument. They should be laughed at when they do, because there's no actual argument there if you look at the facts and logic.
And as long as "Patriots" had all the same rights amongst everyone, alright. However, this is a poor analogy, as "marriage" has a clear long history mixed with religion that is an issue for the government....such is not the case with "man". But even then, you couldn't argue "discrimination"...not in a constitutional sense. In the above suggestion, EVERYONE would be considered the same with the same abilities under the government....they could call it Kwijibo for all I care, that doesn't mean there's discrimination as a legitimate argument in a lawful sense. You could argue that it is overly complicated for literally no reasonable reason, OR you could argue that its based off of discrimination, but neither of those things are unconstitutional.What if when blacks wanted to be more 2/3 a man/human the ruling was now NOBDOY will be a man under law, we will all be call patriots now because some white people refuse to call them men, that word is sacred to them, so were are changing the name.
By that I mean...there's nothing in the constitution that says a persons motivation for something can't come about due to discrimination. However, if said persons motivation turns into a law that causes the government to actively discriminate, then there's a problem.
I don't mind the appeal to emotion, or the dramatic way. My issue though is complete and utter inability to understand how you see treating everyone the same way is an example of the government discriminating.I know that example is an appeal to emotion and dramatic in ways but Im just doing it to make a point. I couldn't look another american in the eye, especially a gay american and tell them that, yes, making them all civil unions was fair and not discrimination. Thats just my opinion.