Marriage is "defined" by historical and societal precedent. That is all that is needed. You can say that it "doesn't hold water", but all you are doing is making a baseless assertion and showing that you are unwilling to accept what society understands marriage as.
Further, you then assert your view and try and blatantly and baselessly put the burden of proof on others to disprove it. Sorry, society doesn't have to justify it's understanding of what marriage is. That burden of proof falls on you. You have to justify why your definition of marriage should be substituted for the generally accepted one.
You have to convince us, not the other way around. To try and change that dynamic only shows you to be stuborn and irrational on this issue.
And don't try to lecture on what the "intended meaning" of the equal protection clause is. Your whole argument makes it clear that you have no idea what its means and how it is applied. Nor do you understand the nature of marriage as a right. That right does not even come into play except between two unrelated people of the opposite sex. If you are going to predicate your argument on not accepting that fact, then you need to cite a logical reason for that; not just flat deny it.
You can keep asserting that California violated the 14th Amendment, but until you can prove that marriage is a right that can be exercised between any two people regardless of sex, all you are doing is repeating an assertion and showing that you are either incapable or unwilling to understand the opposing point of view. If you can't understand the opposing point of view (not a strawman mischaracterization of it), then you cannot reasonably counter it.
You don't even seem to be trying to counter the legitimate points raised. All you are doing is basically saying "I don't believe it" and "give me more proof". In this debate, due to the precautionary principle, it is your side that has to convince us, not the other way around.
In regards to the SCOTUS's jurisprudence regarding the 14th Amendment; the court has only recognized "suspect status" (status that makes a law that categorizes on that basis suspect, and therefore deserving of greater judicial scrutiny) in the case of racial and religious minorities. The court has never extended suspect class status to minorities with regards to sexual orientation. So claiming that this law violates the Constitution is a weak argument, at best.
Besides, as the Sowell article pointed out, prop 8 does not discriminate (prejudicial treatment of a person or group based on certain inherent and inborn characteristics). Instead, it distinguishes between different kinds of behavior. That is a very important difference. It is based on behavior, not inborn traits.
Further, you then assert your view and try and blatantly and baselessly put the burden of proof on others to disprove it. Sorry, society doesn't have to justify it's understanding of what marriage is. That burden of proof falls on you. You have to justify why your definition of marriage should be substituted for the generally accepted one.
You have to convince us, not the other way around. To try and change that dynamic only shows you to be stuborn and irrational on this issue.
And don't try to lecture on what the "intended meaning" of the equal protection clause is. Your whole argument makes it clear that you have no idea what its means and how it is applied. Nor do you understand the nature of marriage as a right. That right does not even come into play except between two unrelated people of the opposite sex. If you are going to predicate your argument on not accepting that fact, then you need to cite a logical reason for that; not just flat deny it.
You can keep asserting that California violated the 14th Amendment, but until you can prove that marriage is a right that can be exercised between any two people regardless of sex, all you are doing is repeating an assertion and showing that you are either incapable or unwilling to understand the opposing point of view. If you can't understand the opposing point of view (not a strawman mischaracterization of it), then you cannot reasonably counter it.
You don't even seem to be trying to counter the legitimate points raised. All you are doing is basically saying "I don't believe it" and "give me more proof". In this debate, due to the precautionary principle, it is your side that has to convince us, not the other way around.
In regards to the SCOTUS's jurisprudence regarding the 14th Amendment; the court has only recognized "suspect status" (status that makes a law that categorizes on that basis suspect, and therefore deserving of greater judicial scrutiny) in the case of racial and religious minorities. The court has never extended suspect class status to minorities with regards to sexual orientation. So claiming that this law violates the Constitution is a weak argument, at best.
Besides, as the Sowell article pointed out, prop 8 does not discriminate (prejudicial treatment of a person or group based on certain inherent and inborn characteristics). Instead, it distinguishes between different kinds of behavior. That is a very important difference. It is based on behavior, not inborn traits.
