Do idiots not understand that "separate but equal" is unconstitutional? (gay marriage vs. civil unions)?

Answer 1

Best Answer - Chosen by Voters

Don't try and confuse religious people with the truth
They'll freaking kill you
Look at history.

Answer 2

The idiots are the ones that want to stretch the definition of marriage to apply where it was never meant to.

Answer 3

i thought that californians understood it at least, but i was proved dreadfully wrong the other day. very sad and disappointed.

Answer 4

Every gay has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, just like anyone else.

How is it discrimination?

Answer 5

Do you understand that legally a Civil union is not a marriage?

Answer 6

yes. I like the South Park episode where a governor comes up with a compromise along the lines of separate but equal.
"but instead of being 'married' you'll be 'butt buddies'
"instead of being 'man and wife' you'll be 'butt buddies'"
it is still discrimination.

Answer 7

Yes, that was established in Brown vs. Board of Education. Any institutions which are separate are inherently unequal...

Answer 8

And where do you get the idea that there's anything "separate but equal" involved?

Both gay and straight people have the right to enter into a civil union with anyone they want, same sex or opposite sex.

Both gay and straight people have the right to marry any consenting adult of the opposite sex.

Everyone has the same rights. There's nothing "separate but equal" involved. The CA Supreme Courts ruling to the contrary was a farce - it was a perfect example of activist judges twisting the law out of all recognition in order to invent a "right" that was simply never there.

Personally, I am not opposed to gay mariages. What I *am* opposed to is judges that ignore the clear language of the law and the Constitution, and the clearly expressed will of the voters, in order to impose their own wishes on the majority.

Richard

Answer 9

The question is not separate but equal, but separation of church and state.

The state can define marriage in any manner that it wants to for the purposes of taxation, equal ownership, inheritence, benefits, etc.

This is far different than how a religion/society may define marriage (i.e., between a man and woman for the purpose of procreation).

Thus the state must redefine marriage for their purposes in order that the laws may be changed accordingly.

Answer 10

I think that if you love someone, regardless of the sex of them and you want to join in a union together, you should be able to. If a white woman and a black man want to get married its allowed, if a mexican man and a chinese woman want to get married its allowed. If you can't discriminate against someone because of their race then you shouldn't be able to discriminate because of thier sex. It's not your life, you don't have to be with them or associate with them. Why fight something that has nothing to do with you at all!