Everyone does have the same right.
Everyone has the right to marry a single person of the opposite sex.
The government is not making any distinction between gay or straight individuals, but merely between gay and straight couples.
Billy Bob and Sally Sue* are also prohibited from marrying each other. And yet you don't see anyone crying about illegal discrimination in this case.
*assume Billy Bob and Sally Sue are siblings
Replace gender with race\ethnicity
Everyone has the right to marry a single person of the same race.
The government is not making any distinction between black or white individuals, but merely between inter-racial and non inter-racial couples.
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/12/weekinreview/november-5-11-marry-at-will.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia
Came across this little quip too
History of marriage
The plaintiffs called
expert witness Nancy Cott, an American history scholar, who testified that "marriage has never been universally defined as a union of one man and one woman, and that religion has never had any bearing on the legality of a marriage".
[59] The next day, she continued her testimony, which revolved around three key points: how marriage has historically been used "punitively" to demean disfavored groups, how the legally enshrined
gender roles in marriage had been disestablished during the 20th century and how the changes in the institution of marriage had mainly involved "shedding
inequalities", which she said strengthens marriage.
[65] She emphasized the importance of the institution of marriage by noting that "when slaves were emancipated, they flocked to get married. And this was not trivial to them, by any means".
[66]
Cott was then
cross-examined by David Thompson, who asked about her personal feelings on marriage equality to establish that she was an advocate rather than a dispassionate scholar.
[67] Defense counsel argued that marriage has
traditionally been between a man and a woman because it provided a stable unit for
procreation and
child rearing.
[68][69]
so lets talk about that last bit
Procreation and child rearing.
Procreation
In the past, with mortality rates, economic factors cultural whatever...Marriage between two people that could pump out kids at a decent clip without the kids dying was a "win"
since Men can't shit babies and women don't spit sperm....you kinda of need dude and dudette.
...after a brief look at the WHO profile for the US. I don't think thats an issue anymore.
In the modern day...with electricty and HMO's and internet porn...a baby can be born in a dumpster, fed a steady diety of coca-cola and cheetohs and that baby can be expected to live to 70 + years old.
Procreation is not a huge concern in the United states. We have a healthy growth rate and government doesn't need to introduce policy to keep women knocked up baby factories.
We have lots of babies to go around.
Anyone can adopt\ or work with modern medicine (donors...evil clones) to fill a crib.
Lets talk about child rearing.
If a single female can successfully raise a child
and
a single male can successfully raise a child
and
a divorced female and male can successfully raise a child
a married female and male can successfully raise a child
then it is reasonable to assume that
2 females can successfully raise a child
and 2 males can successfully raise a child.
I think you would have to be a candidate for gene therapy or traditional "retard" hat to believe otherwise.
As for the "cultural value" of marriage between man and women.
the divorce rate would like a word with you.
I'm tempted to compare it to the cultural value of "In god we trust" on our currency.
Knight of Columbus hall around the country would like you to rent the hall if you want to have a community forum about it.
Please keep in mind that I'm just posting in this thread because I'm procrastinating on something else.
