Let's start with the easy one. By the time this is all done, it's quite likely that sexual orientation will be a protected class.
Perhaps, but what should it be protected against, and why should it be?
Second, SSM bans have thus far been struck down on the basis that they don't even meet the rational basis test, so it doesn't even have to be a protected class.
Ah, but this is the crux isn't it. By definition, a legislative body forming laws that restrict, or limit actions are rational on their face. To claim otherwise is utter nonsense. The burden then shifts to show why it is irrational. The SSM lawyers argue that this irrationality is based on gender discrimination, being essentially, that men cannot marry men, and women cannot marry women. This shifts the burden to the legislation to show why, insodoing, society benefits as a result. This is where we are; as of thus far no
brilliant lawyers in defense of traditional marriage have been able to show why one form of marriage is superior, and naturally conducive as the proper form in which societies must embrace, to the exclusion of all others. I put-forth, as I have many time before that heterosexual marriage IS indeed superior when one clears away the muddy waters that have purposefully made this issue more complex than it has to be.
Consider that sexual orientation for all of its many definitions really comes down to one's attraction to another person for the goal of sexual gratification. Sure, there's romance, desire, and these things are dictated by physiologic and sociologic responses, but at the heart, we define our sexual orientation by who we want to bang. Now, as individuals we are selfish sexual creatures, and we choose rather carefully (At least we think we do and that's all that matters) our sexual partners, but we remain selfish in that we are committed to our own sexual gratification. Ideally, both individuals engaged in sexual behavior having the same goal reach the same sexual gratification together. Some argue (Quite unconvincingly I might add) that these acts of sexual behavior are exclusive to sexual orientation, meaning, that they are not one in the same, that sexual orientation is a
state of mind, and I will concede that notion, however, I also point out that any state of mind is merely a state in any given moment where one is guided by an emotion or stimulus that directs one's energy into accomplishing a goal. In this context, sexual orientation at any given moment, is governed by the sexual thought behavior we envision when we think about what it is, that at that particular moment, moves us into a position where we can successfully engage in sexual copulation. When we're not thinking about sex, our emotions are no
different physiologically, and or sociologically than what we experience when in the company of non-sexual friends.
Breaking it all down, no matter what sexual orientation you are, your
sexual orientation is predicated on the SEX you are hoping to engage in, when in perfect company. All other definitions are rejected logically for they, if not adding to the goal of sexual copulation are immaterial to the truthfulness of the defining characteristics. I am yet to hear a compelling argument that refutes this sentiment.
Therefore, all sexual orientations are by definition ultimately about sexual activity, or behavior. Gender, by extension, is merely the sex of the individual by which you wish to sexually copulate. Heterosexuals sexually copulate with those of the opposite gender, homosexuals, with those of the same gender, bi-sexuals copulate with both sexes. Some argue that marriage isn’t about children, and that some marriages by choice or by-design do not produce children, but these are exceptions, and rare one’s at that, and no matter how the liberal mentality wishes the extreme exception to the rule should vastly impact the general rule, it matters little to most of us that have common sense.
So the question is, does any legislative body meet the rational basis test concerning whether it has the authority to hold one form of coupling over another? The answer is yes, if one considers that it is not radical to hold the viewpoint that a coupling by two opposite gendered individuals is superior to one that is same-gendered. It is equally rational for a society to recognize that parenting, fatherhood and motherhood are not merely who produces and egg, and who provides the sperm. I know the anti-SSM folks have allowed the liberals to carry and frame the debate this way, but any thinking person would naturally reject this line of thinking, especially those of us who are parents that equally identify with our biologically consistent children. Rather, parenting, fatherhood and motherhood are not intangibles, or immaterial to marriages that produce children. They are essential to them. Our mixing of DNA is not complete at conception, our roles are not done, our imprints are not complete until we have shared not only our DNA, but our life’s experiences, our knowledge, our uniqueness that the offspring intrinsically and relates to as his or her own, in such a way that only a child born of two biological parents can offer.
Because what I have just claimed is difficult to articulate, and even harder to justify, since every parent child relationship IS so unique and enduring, we fall for the trap that, in all its complexity, we miss the forest for the trees. A homosexual marriage cannot intrinsically produce a child together, that much is true, and although they can in alternatives methods, the exception should not justify altering the rule. In this case the law.
Even if as some say children don’t matter, then the question becomes, well then what does matter to society, and why should we care about marriage or regulating it, or anything at all? Why not let God or YOUR higher power handle it? The answer is that it really is about the children, and THAT is the ONLY tangible reason for any interference or preference society and governments should have concerning marriage. If we’re judging by what one form of marriage can produce, and that happens to be why we’re in the marriage business at all, then I submit for review that heterosexual marriage IS indeed superior to homosexual marriage in almost every conceivable way, and as such, it is most certainly rational for a legislative body to comfortably conclude that it hold one with higher regard for the posterity of a nation, and the survival of the species.
Again, I will reject any argument that tries to highlight the exception as somehow justified in altering the rule, or dismissing that, because of the exception, somehow a legislative body cannot quite comfortably, and rationally make a law limiting marriage to a singular form to the exclusion of all others. That is not to say that other forms of unions cannot be accommodated, but the stature of marriage belongs to those that offer society the path of least resistance.
I wouldn’t pay you a nickel for your explanation on Due Process, to all the other stuff you posted, blah..
Tim-
