I think, by definition, they cannot have sex.* And by definition, they cannot marry.* Only when you expand the definition of these two terms can they do either. Therein lies the rub, and that is why I believe that marriage "equality" is a false narrative. If gays want to cohabitate and be recognized as partners or husband+husband or wife+wife, ok, fine, I'll go with that, I'm all for civil rights. But to call it marriage, which in the United States has always been between man and woman, is a false argument.
Some simplified legal background for anybody who's interested: According to SCOTUS, the Constitution protects the "fundamental rights" of Americans from government infringement. The question is, what is a "fundamental right?" Well, in Roe v. Wade, IIRC from law school many moon ago, abortion was deemed a "fundamental right" because it had always been done in America since before the country's founding, and it has always been done since the founding. Using that logic, since marriage between a man and woman, both before and after 1776, has always been done, then marriage between a man and woman should be a fundamental right. And since it has never been between man+man or woman+woman, it cannot, therefore, using Roe v. Wade logic, be a fundamental right. Perhaps under other protections found in the Constitution, SCOTUS will find a way to expand the definition of marriage and deem it protected, but it will not be marriage as we know it.
*I have not looked up these words, and I do not care to. These are the commonly accepted usages of the terms, and anybody who says otherwise is dreaming. I'm sure somebody will google the definitions and find some website or print dictionary that includes gay sex and gay marriage. Good for you. I think if you're honest that you want to expand the definition of marriage rather than claim that it's some inviolable right that you're somehow being cheated out of, you'll find more support. The truth will set you free.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Speed Concept 9 (race)
Madone 5 (training)
Trek 1000 (rain/snow/sleet/monsoon)
Some simplified legal background for anybody who's interested: According to SCOTUS, the Constitution protects the "fundamental rights" of Americans from government infringement. The question is, what is a "fundamental right?" Well, in Roe v. Wade, IIRC from law school many moon ago, abortion was deemed a "fundamental right" because it had always been done in America since before the country's founding, and it has always been done since the founding. Using that logic, since marriage between a man and woman, both before and after 1776, has always been done, then marriage between a man and woman should be a fundamental right. And since it has never been between man+man or woman+woman, it cannot, therefore, using Roe v. Wade logic, be a fundamental right. Perhaps under other protections found in the Constitution, SCOTUS will find a way to expand the definition of marriage and deem it protected, but it will not be marriage as we know it.
*I have not looked up these words, and I do not care to. These are the commonly accepted usages of the terms, and anybody who says otherwise is dreaming. I'm sure somebody will google the definitions and find some website or print dictionary that includes gay sex and gay marriage. Good for you. I think if you're honest that you want to expand the definition of marriage rather than claim that it's some inviolable right that you're somehow being cheated out of, you'll find more support. The truth will set you free.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Speed Concept 9 (race)
Madone 5 (training)
Trek 1000 (rain/snow/sleet/monsoon)
Last edited by:
mikegarmin4: Mar 26, 13 3:08