There is a necessity to treat the "non-norm" equally in our society. That is in fact part of our very reason for existing, so that the non-norms have the same rights as the norms.
What you mention are not government things, where the government treats the "non-norms" unequally. In fact, the government many times insists that non-norms must be treated equally to the greatest degree possible. They have left-handed desks in public schools. Those students identified as "higher intelligence" are in fact recognized as such by schools and given work for them, pushed ahead in grades in fact to accommodate that higher intelligence. Treating them equally would not mean going the entire opposite way and forcing others to act differently. It involves recognizing the difference and doing things within reason to treat them as we treat the "norms".
When you go to extremes, you show your heavy bias. The liberals are not the ones today who are killing homosexuals. That would be the conservative societies. Our society, as it is, is not likely in any way to start killing off homosexuals.
You aren't going to accept anything I give you. Polls are what we have to show public opinion. Unless we made voting compulsory within our nation, then you would not be getting a full view of the issue and where people stand. This is even more true given that votes, particularly on this issue are taken so infrequently, years, even decades apart. And I've already given earlier the fact that pushing votes as more people come to support same sex marriage is a much longer and more difficult process than simply going through the courts, as is a right of citizens. But then even votes are showing that same sex marriage has more and more support. It is no more reasonable to vote by state on this issue and leave it than it is to vote on the rights of redheads or Methodists or interfaith couples or brown-eyed to blue-eyed marriages. The law would still treat people unequally based on characteristics that have nothing to do with the legal operation of marriage. No state interests are furthered by those restrictions.
And you still failed to answer the question. You sidestepped (as usual). You contradicted yourself. You said that you had the majority, then when I said you didn't, you said that it didn't matter if you were in the minority, then backtracked again to say that you were in the majority and that gave you the right to make restrictions on marriage based on sex/gender.
Individual citizens get equal protection under the law, not states. States would only get equal protection in regards to federal laws that affect states. States are the government that the 14th and the EPC was meant to limit in favor of the individual rights.
Without giving it a whole lot of thought, I probably would not disagree with much of what you have stated regarding how government generally treats those who deviate from the norm.
I think it comes down to your statement, "
It involves recognizing the difference and doing things within reason to treat them as we treat the "norms"." And I would agree, we recognize the situation with SS couples and we have reasonably accepted the deviance, have accommodated them in myriad ways, but we do not have, being justifiably reasonable, to give them the seal of approval or change our institution of marriage just to accommodate their desires... nor your desires
for them. This is the equivalent of shooting a mouse with an elephant gun... or dismantling the entire health care system to include everyone not paying for healthcare at all the ones that are paying expense.
There is just no need to create such havoc for something so unnecessary. Nobody is stopping anybody from loving who they choose, marrying in their own way whomever they can attract to such join with them in such a situation.
No, I am not just going to accept whatever it is you decide to give me. With as much bias as there is out there on this topic, the amount of subterfuge in this all out attack on one of America's foundational institutions, marriage.
I looked with sadness at the data on marriage you provided...so dispiriting that the best building blocks of our strong nation are being torn asunder under the liberal onslaught. It is undeniable, I would say on average the marriage percentages of left leaning states to right leaning were -2%...but hardly any of the states looked in good shape. You feel this is good for the country do you?
The liberal promotion of trojan horse like ideas, of feminism and its impetus, imploring women out of that most important area, raising their own children, the change in marriage laws to make it much easier to divorce, the advent of the pill et al, thus allowing women to be less choosy about who they mate with, both sexes becoming rapidly less desirous of long term relationships, the push of the Psychology/Psychiatric professions' changing distinctions on things deviant to be considered normal ... that and other liberal campaigns while seemingly good on the surface, even having some good, have so badly injured the institution of marriage. And now this, and then comes later all the others who will use 14th amendment protections and the silliness of related arguments to make marriage unrecognizable and, ultimately, a joke.
Screw your amateurish depictions of what I do. I have sidestepped nothing nor have I contradicted myself. There are all sorts of areas we have both been gliding over as neither of us is writing a book here, although I am beginning to think I should have. As regards majority/minority...there are polls out there that show one thing and another, there are states in recent election voting that have shown a different thing, there are states that have already voted on SSM/marriage definitions that show something completely different. So your false, and inept, accusations of sidestepping/contradiction have no value or merit. It doesn't matter if my side is not in the majority in polls, except in the voting booth polls.
Try to see beyond your own narrow viewpoint, please.
Yeah yeah yeah, discriminating against states and therefore against entire groups of people is ok, I see. Don't you think, with all your openness to do something about discrimination wherever it occurs, we should do something about this enormous inequity?
eace
