Smasharoo wrote:
No. I don't. If Montana decided to not grant hunting licenses to *** people, would you argue that a hunting license granted to a *** person in Oregon should allow him to hunt in Montana?
No, because, and I'm repeating myself here, that's not the issue. That clause could be removed from the Constitution for all I care, it's pretty much useless as anything but as an example of what federalism means for young children. Sexual orientation shouldn't be something that can be used to deny basic privileges. Neither should race. Neither should gender. It's really not that complicated. The idiotic reaches you have to make to find examples to pretend are parallels when there are so many at ground level as just astonishing. What about blindness! Should California have to allow blind people to drive school buses because Ray Charles played piano?
There's an arbitrary set of protected classes our society has deemed shouldn't be used as an arbitrary basis for discrimination. Race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, disability, etc. Some of that is codified as law, already, some isn't but eventually will be. We don't need to play pretend there's some rational basis for any of that. There isn't. It's just part of the social compact of the US. We don't tell kids in wheelchairs they can't go to school, we don't tell black people they can't drive a car and we don't tell two women they can't marry each other. Both of my children understand this, implicitly. Why is it so fucking hard for you to? How did you form a personality so devoid of basic human empathy?
That's wonderful Smash. But not one word of what you just wrote addresses the issue of arguing that because State A grants a marriage license to a gay couples, and that couple moves to state B which doesn't grant licenses to gay couples, that state B should be forced to recognize that marriage as a marriage within their own state. Not. One. Word.
I get that you want State B to change their laws. Great. Fight for that. But doing so by attempting to change the interpretation of the full faith and credit clause so as to force State B to grant marriage benefits to gay couples in the hopes of forcing them to abandon their position is a crappy way of doing this. Because... In the process of doing so, you have
changed the interpretation of the full faith and credit clause. Not just for SSM, but potentially for a host of other things as well.
That is the point I'm making. You keep ignoring what I'm saying and responding with "But it's wrong to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation!!!. Waaaaah!!!". All you're really doing is proving my point for me: That SSM advocates are so focused on the cause they're fighting for that they are not even aware of the legal ramifications of the methods they're using. You're swatting a fly with a sledgehammer, and even after I point out that this is a bad idea, you respond with "but there's a fly that must be swatted!!!".
Dumb. Dumb. Dumb.
Edited, Feb 25th 2015 6:51pm by gbaji