re: Marriage Equality Argument - Pretty good point

quote:

---

Anderson employs a very similar argument that people did when slaves were claiming they were being denied rights.

---

I would say your argument is valid with the points offered. However, no matter how much you want to permit same sex couples to join in unions, they still won't be married. Versus telling someone that they are not a human being with inalienable rights simply because of the color of their skin. Sorry, but they were wrong.

Quite frankly, I find it appalling when a homosexual says they are a minority. Just me.

quote:

---

Or woman

"Well Mrs. Suffragette, you are not being denied rights because voting is reserved for men"

---

THAT'S exactly what they were told and exactly what the Constitution provided.

Which is why the 19th Amendment was necessary for women to get the right to vote.

Which, if gays want a Federal Constitutional right to marry, is exactly what they should be required to pass.

If the pro-gay lobby got a Constitutional amendment, I would have no problem with a Federal Constitutional right to gay marriage.

And, since there is nothing in the Constitution that grants gay marriage rights, and nothing was ever intended to grant gay marriage rights, that's exactly what should be required. Or, as our Federalist system was designed, gays should be able to get states to recognize the right to gay marriage -- which, if they get that done in a Constitutional manner (i.e., not by judicial fiat), no one should have a problem with.

quote:

---

Freeing the slaves was a massive redefinition of personhood

Giving women suffrage rights was a massive redefinition of voting.

Why is "redefinition" a bad thing?

---

Nothing. As long as it's done in a Constitutional manner. As mentioned above, both of these "redefinitions" were done through specific Constitutional amendments.