Tim, it's not about "equal rights," it's about fundamental rights.
As an example, if the legislature decided that there were too many unmarried older women and enacted a law that allowed men and women to marry only when the woman was 5 years or more older than the man, would that be, according to your thesis, equal?
Maybe, but one things for certain, it would not be viewed as constitutionally defensible. The courts have made it very clear that the legislature cannot interfere in matters that are considered critical to our pursuit of happiness unless there is a compelling state interest, and with something as fundamental as the decision to love, enter into a state sanctioned binding legal relationship and live with the woman or man of our choice the age issue would clearly not rise to the level of a compelling state interest.
So when the same question is asked with respect to a woman/woman or man/man who wish to love, enter into a state sanctioned binding legal relationship and live with the person of their choice, what's the compelling state interest that would allow the state to afford them less of a shot at the pursuit of happiness?
There's a lot of hysterical babbeling about protecting the sanctity of marriage but the fact is that no one has a credible answer to that question. It's too bad judges now get elected and recalled, if not they might have had the guts to accord homosexuals the right to marry. In the end it won't matter, there are too many gays out of the closet, they have too many families and friends and the young people of America see the right and wrong of it and soon their legislators will see the need for a "change of heart." Ed |
