Automobile insurance is a legal contract. However, if I choose to purchase a boat I can't get coverage under such a policy. By your reasoning automobile insurance violates the Constitution; it doesn't.
The contract has qualifying features, if you do not meet the qualifying features, you are not eligible for that contract. If you want that contract, all you have top do is meet the qualifications. IF those qualifications are writen in such a way that they are impossible to meet by a "protected" group (don't get em started on the stupidity, and unconstitutionality, of protecting certain groups more than others) then you would have an equal protections argument, but that situation does not avail itself here. As long as every man (and every woman) has the exact same opportunity to enter into the legal status of "married" as everybody else does, then there is no discrimination.
"..but I don't WANT that type of marriage..." Is not justification for discrimination.
I may only have $30, but I don't WANT a Yugo, I want a Porche!!! is not an example of a car dealership discriminatiing against you, just one that overcharges for Yugos.
The contract has qualifying features, if you do not meet the qualifying features, you are not eligible for that contract. If you want that contract, all you have top do is meet the qualifications. IF those qualifications are writen in such a way that they are impossible to meet by a "protected" group (don't get em started on the stupidity, and unconstitutionality, of protecting certain groups more than others) then you would have an equal protections argument, but that situation does not avail itself here. As long as every man (and every woman) has the exact same opportunity to enter into the legal status of "married" as everybody else does, then there is no discrimination.
"..but I don't WANT that type of marriage..." Is not justification for discrimination.
I may only have $30, but I don't WANT a Yugo, I want a Porche!!! is not an example of a car dealership discriminatiing against you, just one that overcharges for Yugos.
For all you supporters of Gay Marriage: What about polygamy?
- 20/10/2012 12:02:06 AM
1647 Views
Legal rights.
- 20/10/2012 12:14:10 AM
1043 Views
should be legal, would be nice for poly people. should include polygyny and polyandry. *NM*
- 20/10/2012 03:29:05 AM
520 Views
Government needs to stop legislating morality. So yes *NM*
- 20/10/2012 03:36:37 AM
493 Views
That's a huge chunk of what government does.
- 20/10/2012 04:35:45 PM
996 Views
That's not what I'm saying
- 21/10/2012 03:21:08 AM
1000 Views
So you're opposed to abortion and gun control then? Welcome aboard!
- 21/10/2012 06:14:14 AM
959 Views
Why do you keep talking about gay marriage and polygamy in the same sentence..
- 20/10/2012 03:58:26 AM
1001 Views
Get a grip. Your response is just what I tried to avoid.
- 20/10/2012 04:33:40 AM
922 Views
The more fool you.
- 21/10/2012 05:55:30 AM
1043 Views
This, and legal recognition of it, is precisely why marriage has become an Equal Protection issue.
- 22/10/2012 03:40:01 PM
1012 Views
*NM*
Because they are both violations of the paradigm of genuine marriage. Like it or not.
- 21/10/2012 05:49:32 AM
899 Views
I have no problem with polygamy being legal, but marriage is a privilege and can be limited to two.
- 20/10/2012 04:16:08 AM
1034 Views
The only problem with that is that it was established with a heterosexist assumption
- 21/10/2012 06:33:32 AM
1030 Views
From a legal perspective, all of your arguments are irrelevant
- 21/10/2012 03:12:39 PM
1157 Views
How would you argue for putting it in the same category as race?
- 21/10/2012 04:28:12 PM
1026 Views
This really is blatantly obvious, but still it might bear repeating...
- 21/10/2012 04:43:13 PM
974 Views
Yes, but only if its equal. Multi-people relationships should be more acceptable by society.
- 20/10/2012 05:15:24 AM
1038 Views
*NM*
"Polygamy" is the all-inclusive term; whether or not he meant it, he said it.
- 22/10/2012 04:31:09 PM
941 Views
I support autogamy in addition to various forms of exogenic relationships
- 20/10/2012 05:49:07 AM
934 Views
Have you seen the Glee episode where Sue Sylvester conducts a marriage of herself to herself? *NM*
- 20/10/2012 09:50:32 AM
506 Views
I am fine with it if all existing parties to the marriage consent to each addition.
- 20/10/2012 10:10:19 AM
1104 Views
The case for polygamy has really weakened rather than strenghtened, you might say.
- 20/10/2012 03:53:34 PM
1158 Views
I have no problem with it, but as Amy says, it's not really relevant. *NM*
- 20/10/2012 05:40:50 PM
526 Views
Legalize polygamy and create a familymaking process, but don't cover polygamy under marriage.
- 20/10/2012 10:14:58 PM
954 Views
The state shouldn't even recognize marriage beyond name changes anyway
- 21/10/2012 03:52:40 AM
1002 Views
Indeed
- 21/10/2012 06:04:41 AM
1056 Views
I don't give a damn what you call it. That's your business.
- 21/10/2012 06:17:40 AM
1356 Views
And so?
- 21/10/2012 07:05:08 AM
975 Views
Re: And so?
- 21/10/2012 04:10:19 PM
1179 Views
So can we call it garriage, give the same legal effect and call it good? *NM*
- 22/10/2012 03:28:33 AM
499 Views
According to your argument we could afford gay couples the same legal privileges...
- 22/10/2012 03:20:17 AM
912 Views
"...separate educational facilities are inherently unequal."
- 22/10/2012 04:45:31 PM
973 Views
That may well be the ideal solution. And also the most ironically amusing in how it would fail.
- 22/10/2012 07:35:05 PM
955 Views
We already went there and did that in '04, and yes, it was funny as f--k.
- 22/10/2012 09:51:49 PM
890 Views
Agreed in principle, but custody/cohabitation/assets go well beyond name change.
- 22/10/2012 04:37:09 PM
953 Views
This is the sort of thing that *needs* to be about principle
- 23/10/2012 04:54:10 AM
892 Views
Parental, property and other rights need government protection, and thus government involvement.
- 23/10/2012 05:14:37 AM
915 Views
Legal contracts must be open to all consenting adults, or none.
- 22/10/2012 03:11:55 PM
1046 Views
You are correct, yet your reasoning is flawed.
- 23/10/2012 03:20:25 PM
952 Views
Again, the Equal Protection Clause has far less force on private entities than on government.
- 23/10/2012 03:52:06 PM
870 Views
Much less force, yes.
- 23/10/2012 04:15:03 PM
870 Views
The crux is "If it's my business, it's my business."
- 23/10/2012 04:43:25 PM
992 Views
Re: The crux is "If it's my business, it's my business."
- 23/10/2012 07:15:17 PM
901 Views
Like you said: By referring to "all invididuals" (or, better, "persons" or "citizens.")
- 24/10/2012 04:14:55 PM
922 Views
But we know very well that it doesn't have dire commercial consequences.
- 25/10/2012 07:17:55 PM
955 Views
I have several friends who practice polyamory, if they wanted to marry I would support it. *NM*
- 24/10/2012 06:47:58 PM
515 Views