it was based on the thinking of marriage such that a homosexual marriage would be a contradiction in therms
I didn't mean to suggest otherwise, but that's still disdain and discrimination, it's just a passive version. Being disregarded because you're black or female or whatever is no less discriminatory than the more conscious and active variety. It's more dangerous because it's below the radar. (I can say from personal experience that it's even more hurtful and frustrating, but since you and I aren't into hurt as a criterion, I put this in parentheses. <g>)
it still wouldn't change the point that you would have a situation where a probably or mostly immutable difference causes the identical treatment to impact them differently.
I don't accept that. You originally mad the point that it was just different impact, not different treatment, which suggests that the distinction matters. When I demonstrate that it is, indeed, different treatment, you say that the distinction you raised doesn't matter.
To bring back a previous analogy if a law outlawing begging was passed because of disdain for the poor...
The poor are not an immutable identity group. The poor are an interest group, a rent-seeking interest group, no less. They can be treated differently under the law. If you are going to make analogies, it has to be with other identity groups--race, gender, and the like. That difference is important. Identity groups facing discrimination are special for a reason. Interest groups can only pitch their claims, hire lobbyists, and win over hearts and minds--or buy them. |
