Almost Equal Protection: A New Legal Doctrine?
Today the Californian Supreme Court of CA birthed new classifications of people, the Gays & the Super-Gay; and a new legal doctrine, Almost-Equal Protection. These creations will not be long-standing because neither the California nor the United States Constitutions allow for a bare majority to strip fundamental rights from a disfavored minority by ballot -- and certainly, neither document allows for Almost Equal Protection.
Super-Gays:
Those that married while the gates to full equality and citizenship were shortly thrown open by the CA Supremes in 2008 did so knowing that such marriages were built upon a shaky legal foundation. 18,000 couples built homes of love and commitment, as the Californian Supreme Court then stated that marriage is "...a basic, inalienable civil right[sic] guaranteed by the California Constitution."
18,000 couples -- that is 36,000 GLBT people are now married by the California Government. These couples enjoy all the rights, privileges and responsibilities of marriage. The earth has not ended, morals have not denigrated, war has not broken out, and heterosexual couples have not divorced at any heightened rate -- families continue to be created in the ways they have always been.
These 36,000 Californian Super-Gays will now be distinguished by a special badge from their GLBT brethren, who while maybe desiring to marry, will be unable to do so. In other words, the "basic, inalienable civil right," is neither basic, inalienable nor a civil right.
Gays:
Then there are the rest of us, GLBT Californians that were not ready yet to marry during the 2008 Summer of love. Here we stand next to our friends, and yet we are subject to a different reality -- a reality of second class citizenship in the back of the bus, a reality of Almost Equal Protection.
Almost Equal Protection:
The court erred when it found that Prop 8 merely "carves out a narrow and limited exception to these state constitutional rights..." You cannot qualify fundamental constitutional rights -- otherwise, they would not be fundamental. Inevitably, this untenable decision must address why two identical same-sex Californian couples are entitled to different rights.
In not making Prop 8 retroactive, the court noted that "those same-sex couples who married ....acquired vested property...including...employment benefits, interests in real property, and inheritances." For these Super Gays, the court failed to mention other real benefits including dignity, equality, recognition, empowerment, spiritual affirmation, etc. In essence, the Court provides a hallow victory for those 18,000 GLBT couples because they win by a technicality, not for the righteousness of their claim to full equal protection.
Today, in their decision the Majority stated they were bound to merely "interpreting and applying the principles and rules embodied in the California Constitution, setting aside [their] own personal beliefs and values." Perhaps the court should have heeded the call of President Obama in selecting Supreme Court Nominee Sotomayor, to apply both the Constitutional and legal principles, including Equal Protection, but also Empathy for the people subject to the inexcusable abandonment of constitutional protections.
Almost Equal Protection is a radical and bold theory that allows for exceptions to fundamental rights. In my legal education, I fail to recall how mere animus towards a disfavored minority group could justify the debasement of constitutions with such exceptions. With a sense of grave foreboding, Justice Moreno correctly noted that this decision "...weakens the status of our state Constitution as a bulwark of fundamental rights for minorities protected from the will of the majority." Today, it's the gays. Tomorrow?
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I halfway understand the CA Supreme Court's decision but I think someone should bring them a dictionary so that they can look up the word INALIENABLE. If they were going to use it in the original case, you would think that they knew what it meant.
INALIENABLE.
no such thing as almost equal protection and your attempt to make a case here, by using it, even in a sardonic fashion, drains the puss from the infection administered by the california supreme court last week.
the equal protection clause of the u.s. constitution is an absolute guarantee and is not mitigated in that document by limiting or mitigating language.
to talk about almost equal is to confuse the far and exceptional reach of the equal protection clause,---in order to have equal protection there can be no exceptions to the rule of law or the rights defined in the constitution that it defines as universal to "we the people".
so what almost equal rights means simply, is that the equal rights clause of the constituion has been violated and that last week the california supreme court did not rule to apply almost equal rights, it ruled to dismantle the equal protectio clause of the u.s. constitution.
one must ask, how justices on the califronia supreme court coudl be so biggotted, like jurists in nazi germany, or so uninformed of the the intent and meanign of the equal rights protection clause of the u.s. consitutution, to make one fo the worst rulings since the dread scott deicison and that of hardwick vs. bowers.
but like those, it will be overturned and the majority justices here, like those in dread scott and hardwick will be juided by the feelbe decsion they rendered here!
[long sigh]
Before I say anything else, we are on the same side.
It sounds like you are forgetting something. The California Supreme Court AFFIRMED the right for gays to marry.
The PEOPLE of California decided to legally redefine marriage using a ballot initiative. (Prop. 8)
When this was challenged in court, the argument was that the Constitution had been REVISED. A revision requires a convention of delegates and a 2/3 approval by the legislature. The fact of the matter is that it was not a revision, simply an amendment, which according to our STATE law is allowed. I don't believe that the Fourteenth Amendment argument was even addressed by the petitioning counsel.
Simply put, the challenge presented was weak and the results were EXPECTED by level headed people on both sides.
I have very high hopes that Ted Olson and David Boies will be successful when this issue is addressed in a federal court.
Your breaking it down for endymian is generally spot on except for two minor points. 1st, it's not that the revision/amendment challenge was weak, it was that it was the only legal avenue available to challenge the former Prop 8 under the California Constitution. Contrary to the assumptions of many who are now blaming the No on 8 side, pro-equality advocates tried to keep the question off the ballot and the Court said no even though circumstances changed between when the petition first gathered signatures and when it eventually got on the ballot (i.e. the original Marriage Case).
The 2nd point is that the result was not generally expected until after everyone saw the oral argument where the justices showed their hand by the questions they threw at the parties. Prior to the oral arguments no one really know how the Court would rule b/c the precedents on that issue were not very plentiful and this particular issue was unprecedented in the state's history so there really was no guidance one could use to predict how the Court would eventually rule.
What I see on this site, and because we're talking lawyers and law here it's understandable, is people dancing all around the truth. People using words to kick the truth in the cajones. Gays are denied equality under the law. You can dance and pretend all you want. That's the truth. What a bunch of dishonest word games. No wonder lawyers have a reputation as slimy weasels. The word equal has a meaning. One that clearly escapes many people when they choose to deny humanity to minorities.
Well said.
What I've noticed about those opposed to same-sex marriage is that their reasoning always involves legal acrobatics, hair splitting, and a healthy dose of totally unsubstantiated evolutionary paranoia ("Same-sex marriage will cause everyone to stop having children!"). Nine times out of ten, it's simply an attempt cover up the fact that their *real* rationale for opposing same-sex marriage is "the Bible says so" or "I just don't like homosexuals".
You missed the arguement that "If you argument stands then any taxpayer and citizen in the country could theoretically bring on the basis that the definition does not include some favorite grouping within its definition of marriage. Thus, anyone could argue that some federal statute might deprive some person in some group of some benefit. Any citizen or taxpayer could as easily claim that some application or other of the DOMA definition to some as yet undesignated statute, which confers some public benefit or right, might exclude that person because DOMA requires a legal union, a man, and a woman."
The old slippery slope arguement. If we start redefining marriage who redefines it and where does it stop?
What you don't seem to understand is that what you say is matter of opinion and not something cast in stone. When you say "equality under the law" , you imply that there is an actual law that guarantees gays the right to SSM. I am guessing that you are referring to the 14th amendment. If that's the case, what you are doing is simply INTERPRETING the 14th as applying to gay marriage. Others, including the 1972 SCOTUS, INTEPRET the 14th as not applicable to the question of gay marriage. If they are right, if the 14th does not apply to SSM, then under what law would you be denied equality?
You just proved his point.
You prove my point. More lawyerspeak. Less truth. Heterosexuals are given the "special rights" only granted to opposite sex marriage. Gays are treated as "less than". That cannot be denied even by those who want it that way. I do know justice and equality is denied gay people. I don't need the USSC to tell me what equality is. Gays having the "equality" to have a marriage with someone of the opposite sex is like Christians having equal access to a Muslim marriage in areas that only allow such unions. They aren't Muslim. They want Christian marriage. That isn't equality. Neither is this. Playing with words and dancing on the head of a pin won't change what is real. Gay relationships are treated as less valid, less human, less real. Isn't that cute, the homosexuals are pretending to be real people.
For those of you that continue to claim that banning SSM is a violation of the 14th amendment of the US Constitution: You are going to have to get a SCOTUS ruling overturning Baker v. Nelson for that to be LEGALLY true.
And what exactly do you think Ted Olson and David Boies are attempting to do?
I'm aware of this. Proves my point. If banning SSM was already a legal violation of the 14th then Olson and Boies would not have to file this suit.
The federal challenge to California's prop 8 ruling by Olson, and Boies, will go nowhere. SCOTUS will most likely either refuse to hear the case, or more likely they will send it back to the California court for further review.
All we need is for Kennedy to side with the LGBT community as he did in Lawrence v. Texas as he was the individual who wrote the opinion of the court.
@Placebo and LeftRight....Segregation, in itself is not illegal. The Court never ruled that ALL seperate but equal situations violate the 14th amendment. We have seperate public bathrooms for men and women. We have seperate lines at DMV for auto dealers and the general public. We have seperate lines in banks for business customers and for personal banking. Brown is not a universal ruling banning ALL "seperate but equal" situations.
Silly comparison. Bathrooms can be used by anyone - look at airplanes, small restaurants, filling stations, etc. They are only separated for convenience so men don't get embarrassed because they have to pee in front of women. I've used men's rooms when the ladies' is broken (and when there was a 50 person line for the women's and men were just zipping by - I was pregnant!).
Specific bank and DMV lines actually move people faster, so they are a benefit.
Making LAWS that tell one person she can get married, and another she can't, is discrimination (not segregation).
PS - it's sepArate, please.
Of course it's discrimination. The question is it lawful or unlawful discrimination.
"Segregation, in itself is not illegal."
--------
As it pertains to individual liberty, it is.
So what? What you're saying is that gays should be discriminated against and marginalized? Then say it.
No, I'm not saying that nor do I believe it or I WOULD say it. I'm saying that this legal argument doesn't hold water.
Segregation, in and of itself, IS illegal when it is state sponsored! That's why so many school districts are busing children from the poorer "black" neighborhoods to the richer "white" neighborhoods!! The SCOTUS decided in Brown v Board of education that when the state does not provide equally to all people in the state, then it's violating the spirit and the letter of the 14th Amendment!
People seem to be confusing the power to do something and the right to do it. The state has the power to deny gays their humanity. They will never have the right. And all you word dancers who are saying that gays shouldn't be able to marry each other (no not a heterosexual marriage, a gay marriage) are doing just that, denying gays their humanity. And there is NO secular reason to do so. None. You should be ashamed of yourselves. It's worse than hatred or bigotry. You are dismissing gay people from being human beings. Shame on you.
Moral codes are not limited to those who are religious. I think that most people, including secular, have one. Many secular people, for instance, believe that prostitution is immoral and harmful to the community. Some of these same people believe that homosexual acts are immoral and harmful to the community. One does not need to be religious to feel this way.
True, but the examples you provide are undeniably rooted in religious beliefs that have ingrained our culture for so many generations, it's now virtually impossible to say that even if they're secular now, that they don't have religious roots. For example, it's almost impossible to find a credible, rationale response to anti-gay belief/rhetoric (in general) but particularly one that is devoid of religious sentiment or which is not reducible to such after careful analysis. A secular bigot might not claim religion as the source of his/her bigotry but that certainly doesn't mean that religious values are not at the core of that belief, whether the person wants to acknowledge it or not.
I didn't say anything at all about religion in my post. I said there is no secular reason to deny gays the right to marry. I stand by that statement. Sure there are secular people who would dismiss gays having legal equality. There is no factual, logical argument that supports them, only the idea that this group is less worthy, without reason to back it up. As for religion, I'm a religious Christian myself. So the assumption that being against gay marriage is a "Christian" value is a bogus idea too.
Homosexuality is not a disorder.
Therefore there is no scientific or constitutional basis for treating gays (and their relationships) as inferior.
The California Supreme Court has handed the GLBT people of California, several huge victories with this prop 8 ruling.
1) 18,000 gay couples that married before prop 8, are still MARRIED under state law. With all the same rights, privileges, and immunities of what heterosexual couples also still enjoy under state law. Equal marriage, as per the 2008 CSC ruling legalizing same sex marriages.
2) GLBT people, as of the 2008 ruling legalizing same sex marriage, have been elevated by the CSC to a suspect class, with strict scrutiny to be applied to all laws that pertain to the GLBT persons. That means California is now the first states court to elevate gays to the same suspect class as race, disability, and religion. This is a big win in itself.
3) GLBT persons after prop8, now have all the same rights, immunities, and privileges of a legal union that is marriage (*but without the WORD marriage). That means 2 men, or 2 women may form a legal union EXACTLY like a married heterosexual couple, but only temporarily without the WORD marriage attached to the license.
*All the CSC ruling that legalized same sex marriages in 2008 are still in effect. INCLUDING the right to have access to the word marriage
Now gay people that did not marry prior to prop 8 can have everything but the name marriage? Why is it that they can have marriage and I can not? There is the legal challenge that the CSC has brilliantly set up for gays to once and for all have equal marriage rights. All a gay couple or couples need to do is challenge in court why this inequity in law. Take it back to the CSC and they will strike down the, what was prop 8 ruling.
The legal team that argued prop 8's validity, did not argue whether prop 8 itself was legal. They argued instead whether prop 8 was properly placed into law. There is a difference. It is perfectly legal to put an illegal law in the constitution. What some one now needs to do is PROPERLY argue that what was prop 8, is unconstitutional under the CSC's previous ruling legalizing gay marriages in 2008.
If gays do win the word marriage back, they will have achieved another great victory as to being the first State to have a constitutional marriage amendment struck down. Thereby setting another nationwide precedent for repealing gay marriage bans
Well, the 14th Amendment couldn't really be clearer when it says:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
NO STATE shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; NOR SHALL ANY STATE deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
This is an absolutely BRILLIANT move by the California Supreme Court, It will positively end or render darn near impossible, any need or way to amend the constitution to take away civil rights.
David's article points out the absurdity of what we've allowed "law" to become. Personally? F*ck the "law". They may have to drag my corpse away, but I will die knowing that I did NOT submit to a government that demonizes and legally HATES my family.
I did notice tax revenues are way down in CA - perhaps I'm not the only gay person saying F*CK YOU to the I.R.S.?
Nope, you're not! My partner and I set up a trust account (with our past due taxes - federal & state for 2 years now) and will pay those taxes when we are legally eligible to file married filing jointly. Our tax burden over those two years would be $13,000 less if we were eligible to file jointly. That is taking money away from providing for our children (don't be confused, we take very good care of our children). Those additional funds could be put into college savings accounts for our children, it could be used to take our children on even nicer vacations, it could be used to send them to better schools, it could be used for a multitude of reasons. But our heterosexual counterparts don't give two-sh!ts about OUR children so long as their children are granted SPECIAL treatment under the law.
I have a feeling a few CA gays are going to have a lot of fun being creative with these designations of Super gay and such. Alas, perhaps we're due for a little political theater and humor on this otherwise sad issue.
I'm sure of it. I know a gay couple who wants to start a website called "the 18,000". After all they're a special group. A group like no other.
I would think the easiest case to challenge Super Gay vs Gay designation would be with a test case of a gay couple which wanted to marry, but one partner wasn't of age for the deadline, and use age discrimination angle.
I disagree. I don't think anyone has argued that age discrimination applies to minors. Age discrimination laws apply to older citizens being denied the same rights as younger citizens, primarily in job discrimination,
Discrimination against a person's age isn't determined by WHAT AGE, if you discriminate against a youth it's just as illegal.
I'm still trying to figure out how a basic civil right of man can be subject to the tyranny of the majority, but the property rights of others cannot....
Then start with the fact that same sex unions are not defined as a marriage in most states and are not a right much less a civil right. If you figure out that by law same sex unions are not a right then you might be able to figure out the rest.....
Gay people are gay.
Gay people pair bond (marry).
Gay people have the same rights under the 14th Amendment as heterosexuals.
Of course this old lie is always marched out that gays have the same access to heterosexual marriage as heterosexuals. But they aren't heterosexual, so they are denied equality. It's like in some middle eastern country where access to marriage is limited to muslim marriage. Christians are afforded the same right to a muslim marriage as everyone else, so the Christians are granted protection and equality, right? Of course not. Christians want a Christian marriage. Gays want a gay marriage.
ALL marriage is a civil right, that's what the SCOTUS and several state supreme courts have determined. The states may not then say that a couple who are of opposite sex may marry but a couple who are of the same sex may not!!
People you are forgetting that the only thing that prop 8 gave heterosexual couples in a legal union, is the name marriage. California now must allow both homosexual and heterosexuals the very same rights and privileges of (what used to be) civil marriage. All of the state rights and privleges, including property, income, health care, etc. EVERY SINGLE OTHER RIGHT AND IMUNNITY. Gays now have the right to rename the legal document to exclude the word marriage from California's legal codes. Californians could call them Domestic Partner licenses, civil unions, Or I would suggest civil wedding licenses. If a one man, one woman couple wants to later call that civil wedding a marriage, who cares. the law will only recognize Civil Weddings. Gays now have ALL the other rights, including being able to go before a justic of the peace, a judge or if they may find one, a minister and have the union solmnized. The 18,000 couples that are still legally married
But the CSC ruled, 4-3, in March 2008, that the name marriage is a constitutional right.
Oh, so it's alright, because although it's separate, it's still equal, right??? I seem to recall hearing that somewhere....... Oh that's right, the US Supreme Court said "Separate is never equal"....
No they didn't. They said separate is not equal in public education and were referring to segregation of the races.
"People you are forgetting that the only thing that prop 8 gave heterosexual couples in a legal union, is the name marriage. California now must allow both homosexual and heterosexuals the very same rights and privileges of (what used to be) civil marriage."
------
Wrong! One perfect example of the inequality is the ability to have ones union SEALED! Meaning you can seal a marriage license, but you cannot seal a domestic partnership. Why is this important? Ask ANY one of our gay or lesbian soldiers who wish to enter into marriage with their spouses before they are shipped to Iraq, Afghanistan, or any other place. Because they cannot have their domestic partnership sealed, this individual can now be booted out of the armed services simply because they wanted to solidify their unions.
WRONG! Read the ruling and you will see where the CSC said prop 8 carved out a NARROW part of the equal protection clause to the constitution. Only the "WORD" marriage may be used by a union of one man, one woman. ALL other rights may be used by gays but the one word. California Gays now may the union sealed just like heterosexuals.
It's like I've been saying all along... the CA constitution guarantees equal rights for all, except when the people of the Golden State vote to amend that constitution to revoke rights for certain targeted groups. What they have done here is no different than if they had voted that all CA residents of Pakistani descent are forbidden from riding public transportation.
The CSC decision was stupid because if Prop 8 is legal under the CA constitution (which it probably is... the citizenry has vast power to change the state's constitution and exercises that power frequently), then nobody can be walking around the state saying they have a "legal" same-sex marriage. The constitution in its currently amended form states that unless it's a man and a woman, it's not a marriage. The CSC voted that the amendment as stated passed muster in terms of the way it was introduced and voted on. So how can they allow these 36,000 to be walking around violating the state constitution?
They're trying to have their cake and eat it too. I also think this should be adjudicated by the SCOTUS, but am hoping it won't be, because they would either kick it back to CA as a state issue, or agree with the CSC on letting the amendment stand.
Nope, Californains need to fix this mess themselves.
No one is being denied the right to marriage. Every unmarried man can marry an unmarried woman. No man can marry a man. No woman can marry a woman.
You claim "What they have done here is no different than if they had voted that all CA residents of Pakistani descent are forbidden from riding public transportation." but the analogy is not correct. The closer analogy would be "Everyone is allowed on a train going to LA. Someone of Pakistani descent wants to take the train to Pakistan. When he finds the train does not go there he claims discrimination and sues.
"Whatever discrimination is made in the punishment prescribed in the two sections is directed against the offense designated and not against the person of any particular color or race. The punishment of each offending person, whether white or black, is the same."
-- From the appeals decision of Pace v. Alabama, 1883
It's funny how bigots all sound the same, isn't it?
"No one is being denied the right to marriage. Every unmarried man can marry an unmarried woman. No man can marry a man. No woman can marry a woman."
You keep describing (repeatedly in seemingly every thread dealing w/same-sex marriage) what is known as the equal application theory which was used in the late 19th century through the mid-twentieth century to avoid the constitutional command of equal protection of the laws. The SCOTUS as well as the CA Supreme Court both resoundingly rejected this theory, yet you keep bringing it up as though it's either something new or that it's gained new credibility. The equal application theory was rejected half a century ago b/c it obviously makes no sense - it seeks to avoid equality by resorting to a technicality. As the SCOTUS opined a long time ago: "equal protection of the laws is not achieved through indiscriminate imposition of inequalities." The argument didn't fly last century and it doesn't now.
Of course this old lie is always marched out that gays have the same access to heterosexual marriage as heterosexuals. But they aren't heterosexual, so they are denied equality. It's like in some middle eastern country where access to marriage is limited to muslim marriage. Christians are afforded the same right to a muslim marriage as everyone else, so the Christians are granted protection and equality, right? Of course not. Christians want a Christian marriage. Gays want a gay marriage. It is not equality. Dance around and play with words all you want. You are comfortable with making gays second class. You are denying gays their humanity.
So what you're saying is that if you move to a state where they allow gay marriage you're going to have to marry a gay person????? Cause that's what it looks like to me.
I'm a man. I love the woman who has become my wife. We have a daughter. She loves a woman who will become her wife. WHY should she be forced to marry a man if she wants the legal benefits associated with being married???????
"No one is being denied the right to marriage. Every unmarried man can marry an unmarried woman. No man can marry a man. No woman can marry a woman."
Gay people are gay.
Perhaps I'm too optimistic, but by not making Prop 8 retroactive, the court did us a big favor --- precisely by creating the absurd situation of having two classes of gays.
It's an untenable situation that will have to be resolved. Leaving those marriages to stand, at least in my view, greatly undermines the case for discrimination.
But, in any case, the 14th Amendment is perfectly clear when it says all citizens have the same rights and that "no state" may rescind them. I think the Prop 8 ruling set us up nicely for a federal case. However, there are some things that need to happen.
The "conservative" members of the court must not be allowed to pretend that gay people aren't gay. They need to be made aware of sexual orientation, not only that it exists, but that homosexuality isn't a disorder.
In the Lawrence dissent, the false comparison was made between homosexuality and "immoral" sexual conduct such as bestiality. The dissent says it's "impossible" to differentiate homosexuality from sexual behavior such as masturbation and incest. This is clearly not supported by the facts. In fact, virgins have a sexual orientation and behaviors like incest and masturbation are not sexual orientations.
The dissent, as it progressed, slightly acknowledged that gay people are a class when it discussed O'Connor's Equal Protection concurrence. It ironically pointed out that there is no sound basis for prohibiting same-sex marriage given the decriminalization of homosexuality.
Lawrence vs. Texas? It doesn't apply to marriage. Thye last SCOTUS ruling on SSM that I can find is Baker v. Nelson. In 1972, the US Supreme Court voted unanimously to dismiss Baker v. Nelson for "want of a substantial federal question". Baker had sued the state of Minnesota for denying him and his male fiancé a marriage license based on the state's requirement that marriage be only between one man and one woman. The SCOTUS ruling essentially said that such a requirement did not violate any amendment cited including the 14th. Also, the Minnesota Supreme court ruled that Loving v. Virginia did not apply to same-sex marriages and the US. Supreme Court essentially concurred by dismissing the suit.
That's in 1972. Things have changed a bit since then.
Not to mention the fact that Lawrence v. Texas DOES apply in one major respect: It made homosexuality to be not illegal. Since these men and women are trying to enjoy the rights afforded to them by the US Constitution, and they aren't doing anything illegal, the government must show cause why allowing them to get married will harm the country (or state, in this case) and they CANNOT!
"Lawrence vs. Texas? It doesn't apply to marriage."
Read the dissent!
I think that you may be right, that this particular decision will result in a faster correction of the mistake made by Prop 8, but the court would have been better to throw it out completely by pointing out that a basic, unalienable, civil right of a minority group cannot be overturned by even 100% of the rest of us choosing to do so!!
Th 14th amendment is perfectly clear when it says all citizens have the same rights. You have the same rights to marry as marriage is defined by law. The state has "the absolute right to prescribe the conditions upon which the marriage relation between its own citizens shall be created."
You as an unmarried man may marry an unmarried woman. That is the same for all citizens. You as a man may not marry a man. That also is the same for all citizens.
You as a man want the right to marry a man. That is NOT a right that any other citizen has. You want the SPECIAL right to be able to marry someone of the same gender. What you want is NOT the right protected by the 14th amendment but exactly the OPPOSITE, a special right to marry as no one else is allowed.
That is a violation of the 14th amendment.
Gay people are gay. That's reality.
If a man has the right to marry a woman, why should women be denied a right afforded to men? Why?
Very well wrtten. Thank you so much!
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
