Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes you have. You just ignored it or chose not to think about it.
Bob is able to enter into marriage.
Jeff is able to enter into marriage.
Sally is able to enter into marriage.
Bob and Sally are able to enter into marriage together.
Bob and Jeff are NOT able to enter into marriage together.
The law treats Jeff and Sally differently, based solely upon their sex. This is sex discrimination.
No, it isn't because Bob and Jeff can't marry regardless of their sexual orientation. It is not because they are gay, because they could not marry even if they were straight. Get it now?
No, I cannot, so don't tell me the law is different for you and me.
Apply your logic to interracial marriage bans. I take it you very much disagree with our Supreme Court that such bans were unconstitutionally discriminatory? I mean, they treated everybody the same. Everybody could marry a person of the same race, and nobody could marry a person of a different race. Additionally, everybody was treated the same when it came to punishment - both blacks and white were punished equally under the law.
Also, what about DOMA? How is it that DOMA treats everybody the same?
Love, maybe.... why does anyone one want to marry anyone?
I am just pointing out that it is legally possible for a gay person to marry another gay person. The law does not care about your sexual orientation. That't the whole point.
Another (free) legal lesson for you. Laws are not only discriminatory if they are discriminatory "on their face." If they are discriminatory in practical implementation and EFFECT, then they can also be discriminatory.
Thus, the fact that the restriction is based on SEX, has the EFFECT of causing discrimination based on SEXUALITY.
Another (free) legal lesson for you. Laws are not only discriminatory if they are discriminatory "on their face." If they are discriminatory in practical implementation and EFFECT, then they can also be discriminatory.
Thus, the fact that the restriction is based on SEX, has the EFFECT of causing discrimination based on SEXUALITY.
Does that mean you now are acknowledging that such laws are in fact discriminatory (not on sexual orientation, but based on sex)?
It is not discrimination, because no one is prohibited from marriage, and the same exact laws apply to everyone regardless of their sex, or sexual orientation. If the law applied only to women, but not men, then it would discriminate based on sex, but the law applies to both men and women. Same law applies to everyone.
It is not discrimination, because no one is prohibited from marriage, and the same exact laws apply to everyone regardless of their sex, or sexual orientation. If the law applied only to women, but not men, then it would discriminate based on sex, but the law applies to both men and women. Same law applies to everyone.
So back to my hypothetical (which you chose not to address). If a law states "One may practice any religion in this state except for Christianity", would you argue it doesn't discriminate since everybody is allowed to practice religion and it applies equally to everyone?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
