Who has a right to refuse bisexuals or sisters/brothers from marrying each other then? Who has a right to exclude me from a club I want to join just because I'm a man?
You not understanding what a "right" is isn't my problem, it's yours.
In
THIS Country everyone has a
RIGHT to free speech. That free speech includes advocating for and pushing for the passage of laws, the changes to legal definitions, and requesting judicial overview for constitutionality. Gays don't have a RIGHT to change a definition arbitrarily on their own just like straights don't have a RIGHT to refuse to change the definition. The only RIGHTS each side has is this is the RIGHT to vocalize their view and belief of what should happen and to go about the constitutional process for changing laws and challenging them within the court system.
When has marriage ever been the societal norm as what marriage is? Tell me. Otherwise you're just tossing out insults and trying to minimize facts you cannot refute.
Societal norm is irrelevant when talking about a LEGAL TERM. Something being "traditional" or a "societal norm" is minor at best, and irrelevant at worst, to it's legal standing. Why should I bother wasting my time with an argument you keep making that is ignorant of it's unimportance and of reality?
It's only irrelevant now because you don't want to address it.
No, it's irrelevant now because "Well, it wasn't like that before" is not a sound legal reasoning for either stopping legislation OR ruling on constitutionality.
What gives the special right to change what the definition of marriage is over any other sexual group?
Since I've said this COUNLTESS Times now, let me try to make it so you can't POSSIBLY miss it.
No. One. Has. A. Special. Right. To. Define. A . Term.
Gays don't. STRAIGHTS don't either. Bi sexuals don't. Dogs don't. NO ONE has a special right to define a term. You're making up a retarded argument within your own head and banging it again and again while ignoring what anyone else is saying...and the argument DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.
What is being done here is not a group magically being granted a "special right" to "change a definition". What a group is doing is using their rights as CITIZENS....not as gay people, not as straight people, but as citizens....to speak their support for a political issue, to push for the passage of laws supporting their political position, to advocate for changing legal terms, and to challenge the constitutionality of law within the court system.
That's not a "Special right" of Gay People. Those are rights
EVERY SINGLE GODDAMN CITIZEN has.
So if you want to continue this facade of "Special right to change a definition" and continue to show your utter, complete, and unquestionable ignorance on the topic and on what a "right" is in this country be my guest. I'm not continuing to frustrate myself by talking to a brick wall on this issue.
Not all traditions are meant to be broken. Marriage as a traditional institution serves a specific purpose. It's like a club. Nobody is barred from joining the club as long as you follow the rules.
However, it's NOT a club. Not in it's present state. In it's present state, it's a government contract. And as a government contract, it must follow the laws of the land in terms of barring people from joining it and establishing what those "rules" are. If marriage was a purely societal term that was no involved in government what so ever you'd be 100% correct. However, it's not in the case being discussed. It's a government term, a legal definition, and as such it must be lawful and constitutional in its exclusion of other groups.
I can't marry a man right now.
Correct. Yet a female can. The law allows a female to do what you as a man are disallowed to do. For the government to have such a law, it needs to meet certain criteria.
Why should gay people have that special right?
They would have no special right. The anti-SSM activists own argument blows this out of the water. They claim that things are "equal now" because a Gay Person could "marry the opposite sex". Well, if SSM is legalized then the same applies in reverse...straight people could "marry the same sex". No "special right" being granted.
Especially when other sexual interest groups want to marry men too? Why are only gays allowed to marry men?
You're.....you're serious? Really? This is your understanding of this debate? I mean...I honestly can't tell if you're joking.
If the marriage laws are struck down and same sex marriage is legalized......ANY other person, straight, bi, or gay could marry a person of the same gender.
The founders conceived of National Security as a technical necessity for the survival of the country.
And they concieved of the ability to amend the constitution to cover issues that the country felt was important as well and established a Supreme Court. Those abilities led to the 14th and the EPC. It's wonderful how you like to pick and choose what parts of the constitution are important to think about the founders intent and which parts you like to **** on.