- Joined
- May 15, 2010
- Messages
- 27,392
- Reaction score
- 20,164
- Location
- Georgia
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
Well. Strike while the iron is hot, I suppose. We are in the midst of a spirited culture war. Could be. Do you think there is enough strength on the right to amend the constitution? I'm not sure.
I just don't see this issue not being resolved in this decade. My generation is overwhelming supporting of SSM, and support will only grow overtime with people who currently do not support it.
So you frame it as a women's rights issue. Cute trick. It does leave homosexual men out of the picture, though, doesn't it?
A woman has the same right to marry a person of the opposite sex as a man has. Equal. No unfair discrimination.
I'm not framing it as a women's rights issue, the same thing applies to men, why can a women marry a man, and not a man. It's the same logic, and that is in violation of the 14th amendment equal protection clause. It discriminates against gender, and by that also discriminates against LGBT people.
And using the argument that I have the same right to marry a person of the opposites sex is dishonest. I will never have the desire to marry a person of the opposite sex, nor will I form a family with the person of the opposite sex. It's like what Centrist said, black people had the same right to marry as white people, just people of their own race. It's the same logic, and with that kind of precedent I think once it hits the SCOTUS it will only be a matter of time.