Painful: Axelrod tries to explain Obama’s non-position on Prop 8

posted at 5:10 pm on August 5, 2010 by Allahpundit

Poor Ax, tasked here with salvaging some sort of logic from a stance which everyone knows is taken purely for reasons of political expediency. Fox News has a handy list of Obama quotes on Prop 8 and gay rights over the past few years, from which I’ve gleaned the following: (a) He opposes same-sex marriage and (b) believes that states should be able to set their own marriage rules, but (c) if a state decides to set its own rules by adopting his position, then, according to a White House spokesman, it’s “divisive and discriminatory.” (Fun footnote to that last point: During the campaign, The One told Jake Tapper that he had no problem with what California was doing.) If he thinks restricting gay marriage is perniciously discriminatory, why on earth would he support letting California do it? And if, as Axelrod says, he thinks it was “mean-spirited” to pass Prop 8, where does that leave us vis-a-vis O’s continuing opposition to gay marriage? Barack Obama — hateful hyper-federalist?

Actually, as a matter of policy, I think he subscribes to the Kathleen McKinley “compromise” view that full civil unions should be perfectly okay but the label of “marriage” should be reserved for straights. That’s a common argument from gay-marriage opponents and definitely one offered in good faith, but from the standpoint of equal protection law, it actually makes their case harder, not easier. Remember, Walker’s point yesterday was that there’s no rational reason to discriminate against gays when it comes to marital status. All the usual arguments — to encourage procreation, etc — were addressed and discarded. When you make the rhetorical concession of saying, okay then, we should give gays all the same marriage rights as straights but let’s just keep the labels distinct, you’re actually making his point for him — that there’s no rational substantive basis for distinguishing between us and them. If you want to draw a conceptual line between two groups as a matter of law, you need a solid justification. Otherwise, why draw it?

Exit quotation via Bob Maistros: “With Judge Walker’s decision, it comes down to this for proponents of traditional marriage: go to the feds for constitutional protection of marriage, and they say regulating marriage is a state matter. Regulate marriage on the state level, and the feds will invalidate your actions as violating the U.S. Constitution.”

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

I imagine Allah sitting at a PC in the dark somewhere feverishly separating links to various bad sites from actual legit comments.

TheBlueSite on August 5, 2010 at 7:08 PM

TheBlueSite on August 5, 2010 at 6:59 PM

Oh, well since you put it that way, let me shut up and go back in the closet. I wouldn’t want you to have to deal with your marriage exclusivity.

Sorry, but marriage isn’t a country club.

JetBoy on August 5, 2010 at 7:08 PM

lol. My last reply to jetboy is held up now as well. I can’t figure out what word I’m using to set it off.

TheBlueSite on August 5, 2010 at 7:07 PM

All I know is the “L” word gets blocked for some reason.

JetBoy on August 5, 2010 at 7:09 PM

Sorry, but marriage isn’t a country club.

JetBoy on August 5, 2010 at 7:08 PM

But soon it will be a San Francisco bath house.

Holger on August 5, 2010 at 7:09 PM

Got any studies/proof of this, or does it simply contradict your Norman Rockwell-esque view of America?

JetBoy on August 5, 2010 at 6:55 PM

Actually, it contradicts against the laws of nature and what’s normal. Do you know that the brains of homosexual men resemble that of heterosexual women–the amygdala and memory processing ? It means that you and I have similarly constructed brains, that we react to male pheromones…only I’m not in a man’s body. Perspective.

RepubChica on August 5, 2010 at 7:09 PM

JetBoy on August 5, 2010 at 7:08 PM

Like I said- the only reason nearly all things have meaning are because of exclusivity. I argue that lack of exclusivity, and in turn, uniqueness, DOES diminish “traditional” marriage (aka the marriage we’ve known for 5, 000+ years).

TheBlueSite on August 5, 2010 at 7:11 PM

How about a cure for idiocy?

JetBoy on August 5, 2010 at 6:56 PM

Same thing considering the std infection rates of homosexuals.

Consider it further protection from HIV.

Holger on August 5, 2010 at 7:03 PM

Yup. And with Obamacare there are no restrictions on pre-existing conditions.

Who’ll get preference? The 80 y/o granny who needs a hip replacement? Or, the 22 y/o homosexual with all sorts or stds and / or AIDS who needs his medication?

YEA !!!

BowHuntingTexas on August 5, 2010 at 7:11 PM

Actually, it contradicts against the laws of nature and what’s normal. Do you know that the brains of homosexual men resemble that of heterosexual women–the amygdala and memory processing ? It means that you and I have similarly constructed brains, that we react to male pheromones…only I’m not in a man’s body. Perspective.

RepubChica on August 5, 2010 at 7:09 PM

Since not only people have homosexual behavior…many animals exhibit it as well…then yes, it IS a part of nature. As for what’s “normal”, that doesn’t fly. I just love being labeled “not normal” simply because I was born gay.

As for the brain thing, that’s the first I heard of that.

JetBoy on August 5, 2010 at 7:13 PM

Actually, it contradicts against the laws of nature and what’s normal. Do you know that the brains of homosexual men resemble that of heterosexual women–the amygdala and memory processing ? It means that you and I have similarly constructed brains, that we react to male pheromones…only I’m not in a man’s body. Perspective.

RepubChica on August 5, 2010 at 7:09 PM

Brain structure sounds like something natural (i.e., more body than mind). As far as normal, Constitutional rights aren’t based on how common your qualities are.

dedalus on August 5, 2010 at 7:26 PM

Since not only people have homosexual behavior…many animals exhibit it as well…then yes, it IS a part of nature. As for what’s “normal”, that doesn’t fly. I just love being labeled “not normal” simply because I was born gay.

As for the brain thing, that’s the first I heard of that.

JetBoy on August 5, 2010 at 7:13 PM

Many animals eat the offspring of their rivals, their own species to give themselves a ‘fitness’ advantage.

Perfectly normal behavior.

Inanemergencydial on August 5, 2010 at 7:37 PM

But when this fails to bring all those stubborn fundies around to say that gay marriage is normal and acceptable, what then? After all, there won’t be any satisfaction until there is absolutely no dissent on the subject of homosexuality. This isn’t about marriage in itself at all.

ddrintn on August 5, 2010 at 7:42 PM

Oh, it’s long been clear that our choices affect our brain structure. You think most people addicted to anything started that way? Sure, there may be tendancies towards alcohol ( in fact, I bet I probably have some) but since I never took a drink, it doesn’t matter.

Choices about sexual things really hammer pathways in our brains. Jetboy is of the opinion that being gay is ok. How he reconciles that with his Catholicism is beyond me, since the Catholic church has been pretty clear on that for the last two thousand years at least.

Look, here’s the deal: animals may indeed perform same sex acts. They also eat each other, rip off the heads of their partners during sex, etc. The whole point of being a human is that we are MORE than just animals. Gays tend to ignore that. I really don’t care if you are attracted to your same gender; it’s what you do about it that counts. Is there a moral standard or not? Murder and rape are “natural.” But we criminalize it anyway.

Being gay is, setting aside the whole “are you born that way or not” discussion, just another thing that many people have to overcome. Just like being an alcoholic, or a tobacco user, or being attracted to ten year olds. Those all are conditions some people are afflicted with. I don’t have any problem with expecting people to overcome those weaknesses, instead of celebrating them.

Vanceone on August 5, 2010 at 7:46 PM

Vanceone on August 5, 2010 at 7:46 PM

According to Vance, being gay is simply not normal. Either it’s a disease or a choice. Oh, brother.

As for my Catholicism, again…that’s religion. I’m not trying to change religion. And for the record, The Church does not see homosexuality as a sin, only the act of sex outside of marriage (gay or straight) is sinful, as having sex is a free will, but sexuality itself is inherent.

JetBoy on August 5, 2010 at 7:54 PM

Vanceone on August 5, 2010 at 7:46 PM

Not helping.

alwaysfiredup on August 5, 2010 at 8:19 PM

Painful: Axelrod tries to explain Obama’s non-position on Prop 8

Let Me Do It “Present”

There ya go, you can get back to your golf game now.

Dr Evil on August 5, 2010 at 8:24 PM

Basing your entire identity on what’s going on in your pants is immature. Live, and, for crying out loud (I’m talking to YOU Nancy!) LET LIVE !!

teacherman on August 5, 2010 at 8:26 PM

Society is under no obligation to make homosexuals feel better about their life style choice by “accepting” it. That’s right, I said CHOICE, because until we have some hard science (not that dribble we get from the global warming claque) we’re going to have to go with the idea that this life is a choice. Sorry fellas, but no amount of acceptance by society is going to change anything if your parents can’t stand the sight of you. So, how’s about we all shut our bedroom doors, shut our big mouths, and mind our own business, eh?

teacherman on August 5, 2010 at 8:43 PM

My last post was blocked, too… It looks like “wo*kie” (as in Han Solo’s side-kick) is on the List of Banned Words…

Haiku Guy on August 5, 2010 at 7:05 PM

Yeah, it is. Sorry ’bout that.

BobMbx on August 5, 2010 at 9:20 PM

My last post was blocked, too… It looks like “wo*kie” (as in Han Solo’s side-kick) is on the List of Banned Words…

Haiku Guy on August 5, 2010 at 7:05 PM

Is there a list of banned words so we can know what not to put in our comments?

sharrukin on August 5, 2010 at 9:23 PM

Obama is a liar and his spokesfool is lying about it.

Destroying the meaning of marriage to please those who only want it so they can change it is perfect O-logic.

Marriahe is a union of opposites, not a sealing of sames.

Words have meanings.

Until feelgooders get their paws on them.

Then everything becomes compassionate chaos.

With the (unintended?) consequence of the total sexualization of childhood.

Since the Law will force the teaching of deviant erotica to first graders, onward.

And downward.

Timmy’s two daddies do fisting is an inevitable outcome of this ruling..

profitsbeard on August 5, 2010 at 10:54 PM

Judge Walker’s tyranny is indicative of the Democrat Party’s long term totalitarian strategy on all judicial levels:

You don’t have to win any elections if you can nullify the results.

Consider who inherits further decision making on nullifying Prop 8… the 9th Circus joke and the degenerating Supreme Court. Today we see how easily an incompetent and dishonest appointee of Kagan can be confirmed to the Supreme Court. An appointee sufficiently dishonest to mislead on the ACOG report she had modified to suit what she wished it to contain before sending it to Slick Clinton. That defective mindset has no interest in laws only outcomes. A mentality which would have no scruples denying the vote of the people whenever it should suit her fancy.

viking01 on August 5, 2010 at 11:10 PM

Society is under no obligation to make homosexuals feel better about their life style choice by “accepting” it. That’s right, I said CHOICE, because until we have some hard science (not that dribble we get from the global warming claque) we’re going to have to go with the idea that this life is a choice.

teacherman on August 5, 2010 at 8:43 PM

Speech, religion and owning a gun are also choices. Fundamental rights aren’t a function of mere biology.

dedalus on August 5, 2010 at 11:21 PM

George Bush’s tyranny is indicative of the Republican Party’s long term totalitarian strategy on all judicial levels:

You don’t have to win any elections if you can nullify the results.

viking01 on August 5, 2010 at 11:10 PM

Sounds just as ridiculous from the libtard side, doesn’t it?

Winning elections is not a guarantee that the winner gets a free pass to implement their agenda.

Dark-Star on August 5, 2010 at 11:53 PM

Dark-Star on August 5, 2010 at 11:53 PM

Which election did George Bush nullify or are you one of those Katherine Harris haters Al Gore pawned in attempting to suggest the Florida Supreme Court’s interference with Harris’ certification of the legitimate election results must not go forward?

Not liking an election outcome should not guarantee that a judge’s dislike of who won should enable him to preempt seven million votes.

viking01 on August 6, 2010 at 12:09 AM

“If it does not pick my pocket, nor break my leg I care not”.

Who is John Galt on August 6, 2010 at 12:36 AM

At the end of the day, it’s a tax issue. If the state (in the most general sense) deems marriage as a right between and two — or more — people, then the tax advantages must surely follow.

I could marry a guy I’ve never met in order to create a business relationship that has a tax advantage that would not exist if we were not “married.”

That’s what perplexes progressives. The law provides for special priveledges within the context of marriage. If the one man, one woman standard is dismissed, then any grouping can grab those priveledges to gain an economic advantage.

This makes quite an enigma for the left. Removing the restrictions on marriage creates an opportunity for tax avoidance. Keeping the definitions tight controls tax avoidance. Releasing these restrictions creates a problem for the taxing class.

Either way, stepping away from the implications for marriage and the law is a political 3rd rail. Who wants to use, “there is no marriage,” as a campaign platform!

With this in mind we can all understand the dissembling of the Obama administration.

Just another dropping.

Moose Dung on August 6, 2010 at 12:54 AM

That’s a common argument from gay-marriage opponents and definitely one offered in good faith, but from the standpoint of equal protection law, it actually makes their case harder, not easier. Remember, Walker’s point yesterday was that there’s no rational reason to discriminate against gays when it comes to marital status. All the usual arguments — to encourage procreation, etc — were addressed and discarded. When you make the rhetorical concession of saying, okay then, we should give gays all the same marriage rights as straights but let’s just keep the labels distinct, you’re actually making his point for him — that there’s no rational substantive basis for distinguishing between us and them.

There’s one twisted piece of logic.

Rocks on August 6, 2010 at 1:12 AM

If you want to draw a conceptual line between two groups as a matter of law, you need a solid justification. Otherwise, why draw it?

Really? When was this determined? How about this for solid justification. Same sex unions are not in fact marriages. Suggesting same sex unions are marriage are the equivalent of suggesting a liquid not containing H2O is water. Is some “rational substantive basis” needed to justify a law which states only liquids containing at least Hydrogen and Oxygen shall be classified as water?

Rocks on August 6, 2010 at 1:19 AM

There is danger in presuming what Judge Walker considers rational necessarily constitutes rational to those not sharing Walker’s political and personal agenda. The warped jurist seems to be seeking acceptance not equality and is willing to overturn an election to get his way.

viking01 on August 6, 2010 at 1:26 AM

Dogma of the homosexual community destroys all rationality.

PrezHussein on August 6, 2010 at 2:01 AM

“traditional” marriage (aka the marriage we’ve known for 5, 000+ years).

….which includes polygamy, in most cultures. But that died out in the West, I dunno, in the early Middle Ages? Need to look that up. But in any case, much more recently than 5000 years ago.

If you think marriage should be defined as between one man and one woman, fine, define it however you like, but you just can’t back that up with the claim that it’s “traditional” as far back as you want to go. it’s certainly not Biblical.

YehuditTX on August 6, 2010 at 3:20 AM

Who freaking cares . . . this poor sick country is slowly and painfully dying and this is nothing more than a minor death rattle.

rplat on August 6, 2010 at 5:47 AM

With Judge Walker’s decision, it comes down to this for proponents of traditional marriage: go to the feds for constitutional protection of marriage, and they say regulating marriage is a state matter. Regulate marriage on the state level, and the feds will invalidate your actions as violating the U.S. Constitution

and yet we have another example of how government is forced togo or willingly goes beyond its authority and capability to redefine an institution that precedes it in time and moral authority and looks like a laughingstock while doing so. We cannot neither legislate nor adjudicate morality, that is a fact and this is exhibit A.

ted c on August 6, 2010 at 5:55 AM

Is there a list of banned words so we can know what not to put in our comments?

sharrukin on August 5, 2010 at 9:23 PM

It’s trial-and-error. If your post doesn’t post, hit the BACK button and look at your submission. It’s usually pretty clear what got you put into the penalty box.

I find that sometimes it is an innocent error, where I innocently use a word that flags a review, and the post is only delayed a few minutes, which is a sign of a well-moderated and responsible site. Sometime, however, the moderator sends things off to the Memory Hole that I think are completely inoffensive.

But, it’s their site. They get to make that call. I’m just a guest here, so I will try to refrain from peeing on the carpet.

Haiku Guy on August 6, 2010 at 6:01 AM

“With Judge Walker’s decision, it comes down to this for proponents of traditional marriage: go to the feds for constitutional protection of marriage, and they say regulating marriage is a state matter. Regulate marriage on the state level, and the feds will invalidate your actions as violating the U.S. Constitution.”

So hows that going to work out when/if “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” gets repealed and a gay military guy gets married and demands benefits for his same sex spouse ?
.

philly_PA on August 6, 2010 at 6:54 AM

philly_PA on August 6, 2010 at 6:54 AM

That’s a good point and what this would ultimately lead to is a decrease in benefits to married couples with children, in order to provide “married” sodomite DINKs with even more income with which to throw around on their gorgeous wardrobes and palatial estates.

Fantastic idea.

NoDonkey on August 6, 2010 at 7:12 AM

Leftism is such a cowardly religion.

It must suck to wet your panties at the though of just giving your position on something. What a pu$$y.

MNHawk on August 6, 2010 at 7:50 AM

Why is it that the questioners always have incomplete information when they catch this administration out on a lie or a double-speak? No on gay marriage but yes on equal rights but no on federal oversight but yes on states rights and Obama opposed Prop 8 but doesn’t agree with gay marriage but…

Mean spirited…since when is that a legal argument?

allstonian on August 6, 2010 at 8:29 AM

Everyone is looking at this the wrong way. Let them get married but make sure there are laws on the books that protect churches. The next step on their agenda will be to compel churches to provide for the ceremonies or they will be sued for discrimination.

kongzilla on August 6, 2010 at 8:48 AM

I’m not sure how it works for women, but I don’t think a man can “choose” to be gay and make it work. I can “choose” to be gay all day long but there ain’t no way I’m gonna get it up for a guy. There is no desire there, nothing to turn me on. Don’t take it personal guys, I just ain’t that into you.

My point is, perhaps there is a biological component involved in being gay. I don’t know for sure, but the evidence supports my assertion. Until we’re sure, should we be denying people something they can’t deny themselves?

runawayyyy on August 6, 2010 at 9:10 AM

When you make the rhetorical concession of saying, okay then, we should give gays all the same marriage rights as straights but let’s just keep the labels distinct, you’re actually making his point for him — that there’s no rational substantive basis for distinguishing between us and them.

I hold the “anti-gay marriage/don’t care about gay civil unions” stance, and my answer for this very question goes something like this.

Marriage began as a religious sacrament. I understand that in the past there has been a need for a civil definition of the term “marriage”, but why not move forward by removing “marriage” from the public discourse and replacing it with the term “civil union” for couples of any kind? That way, marriage belongs to your religious institution of choice, and the citizens of the individual states are free to define civil unions as they wish via the ballot box and the state legislature. That way, there is no legislation of marriage of any kind. There shouldn’t any legislation of marriage anyway as marriage is usually viewed as a religious sacrament. Civil union licenses can be purchased just like marriage licenses, and civil unions themselves can be instituted concurrently at a marriage ceremony or via the justice-of-the-peace.

I really don’t see a problem with this. Can anyone point one out? I’m genuinely curious.

Kevin from Ohio in V on August 6, 2010 at 9:38 AM

Homosexuality, like liberalism,.are both MENTAL disorders,for which there are currently no “viable” cure.

Offhanded on August 6, 2010 at 9:44 AM

Homosexuality, like liberalism,.are both MENTAL disorders,for which there are currently no “viable” cure.

Offhanded on August 6, 2010 at 9:44 AM

In that case let them enjoy their cake; what’s it to you? If they’re not born that way (at least some of them) then explain hermaphrodites. Which would be the godly/right choice… the male of female organs, or both… or maybe just the most developed organ?

whiskeytango on August 6, 2010 at 9:57 AM

YehuditTX, marriage certainly is defined as between one man and one woman in the Bible, beginning with Genesis 2:24 — “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cling to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.”

Jesus confirms this in Matthew 19:4-6 (“…wherefore they are no longer two, but one flesh…”).

Although polygamy was practiced by some ancient Hebrew leaders (such as King David), as well as other cultures in the region, it was not sanctioned by the God of Israel. It’s important to remember that not everything that people do in the Bible is what God wants them to do!

Many Old Testament leaders were, in fact, husbands of one wife: Noah, Moses, Boaz, Isaac, Adam, Hosea, Joseph and Isaiah come to mind.

Among Jesus’ disciples and apostles, no one who had more than one spouse. I Timothy 3 says that bishops and deacons must have no more than one wife apiece (verses 2 and 12). Titus 1:6 confirms this.

KyMouse on August 6, 2010 at 10:04 AM

Other than it’s annoying to see the court system dictate, I really couldn’t care less about gays marrying. Welcome to the reality of divorce, too, then, which gets mostly ugly because of legal issues.

In any case, I suspect a lot of people who voted for Prop 8 also really don’t care either.

AnninCA on August 6, 2010 at 10:15 AM

Sounds like Clinton to me……

CynicalOptimist on August 6, 2010 at 10:19 AM

In that case let them enjoy their cake; what’s it to you? If they’re not born that way (at least some of them) then explain hermaphrodites. Which would be the godly/right choice… the male of female organs, or both… or maybe just the most developed organ?

whiskeytango on August 6, 2010 at 9:57 AM

Good point. My funny story about transgender was a lovely connection with a daughter of my friends when camping. She and I would enjoy our morning coffee, talking mostly about books. She was also an English major.

I wondered why my friends’ son hadn’t joined us in the annual camping trip. He was a bit odd, wore make-up, etc., but a sweet guy.

My friend laughed and said, “Ann, that is Steven, now Stephanie.”

No wonder she bonded with me. I was the only nitwit who didn’t know and treated her like the real girl she was inside.

Lovely young woman, btw.

AnninCA on August 6, 2010 at 10:33 AM

He actually handled it a little better than I thought according to the title description. Or maybe I am just getting used to Democrats talking and not making any sense.

closetgop on August 6, 2010 at 10:33 AM

I just love being labeled “not normal” simply because I was born gay.

JetBoy on August 5, 2010 at 7:13 PM

You weren’t born gay.

fossten on August 6, 2010 at 10:44 AM

The government has demonstrated, here, that they cannot be trusted to participate in important cultural institutions. The government should be removed from the whole matter of marriage, altogether. If they want to issue civil partnerships, or some such thing, for tax, custody or property purposes, that’s fine But they should leave the matter of marriage to cultural institutions.

Haiku Guy on August 6, 2010 at 10:46 AM

It’s one thing to me,…it’s their dishonesty .

Offhanded on August 6, 2010 at 10:47 AM

YehuditTX on August 6, 2010 at 3:20 AM

Polygamy is not marriage, it’s multiple marriages. Each marriage itself is only between a man and a woman. It just happens that at least one of them are already married. So no Marriage does not include polygamy. Not now or 5000 years ago.

Rocks on August 6, 2010 at 11:03 AM

I do wonder what the limits are to this decision. Can an elderly woman marry her daughter, in order to simplify medical decision making and incidentally avoid estate taxes via spousal exemption? Why not? If it is not longer about the traditional definition of marriage, or about procreation and protecting children, to the State this is an economic contract and there is no logically consistent reason to prevent this.

motionview on August 6, 2010 at 11:53 AM

I wondered why my friends’ son hadn’t joined us in the annual camping trip. He was a bit odd, wore make-up, etc., but a sweet guy. My friend laughed and said, “Ann, that is Steven, now Stephanie.”…I was the only nitwit who didn’t know and treated her like the real girl she was inside. Lovely young woman, btw.

AnninCA on August 6, 2010 at 10:33 AM

Deconstructionists (among others) want to tear down the meanings of words, including “male” and “female,” to the point that words mean whatever individuals or groups want them to mean. Here is “Steven,” a young man who is a “real girl” inside. (Hmm…does he use the Men’s or Women’s restroom? Does he date women, or men, or both?)

Such deconstruction means, therefore, that DNA — the whole Y chromosome thing, in Steven’s case — means nothing. There is nothing absolutely true, we must accept, even in verifiable biological facts.

So if the truth about Steven’s sex is not told by the XY sex chromosome complex in his DNA, should we also believe that his body tells us nothing true about his age? In other words, if Steven tells AnninCA that he is not only a girl, but also a very little girl — say, three years of age — should we take his word for it?

KyMouse on August 6, 2010 at 12:20 PM

I’ve only heard it through one source that the judge himself is gay and that was unknown to the public when he took the position.

shick on August 6, 2010 at 3:44 PM

KyMouse on August 6, 2010 at 12:20 PM

But meaning is defined by individual desires and not reality./sarcasm

shick on August 6, 2010 at 3:45 PM

Like it or not marriage is a right as well as a rite.

Rights are inherent with each person. They cost nobody else any money for a person to exercise their right. Marriage falls under that rubric the same as free speech, freedom of religious observance, and gun ownership. So like it or not the Constitution specifically disallows discrimination, particularly with regards to exercising your human rights.

If you do not like this there is a way to change it, a Constitutional amendment. It was made difficult for a very good reason. That difficulty is your bulwark against the tyranny of the majority. If a majority can determine a specific class of people are not allowed to marry each other in defiance of the Constitution then a simple majority can override the Constitution on any other issue leaving it in utter tatters and disrepair.

{^_^}

herself on August 6, 2010 at 3:55 PM

Comment pages: 1 2