Foxfyre wrote:If I can't make the requirement for age, physical fitness, height, weight, etc. that might be required for me to do something, should I be able to demand that the requirements be changed to accommodate what I want? Is that discriminatory?
OK, first of all, I'm glad to see that you're still listening. That's the first stage toward learning.
Secondly, your examples are awful, just terrible. They're not analogous to the issue of homosexual marriage at all. It's clear that you still don't get it.
I'll go through this very slowly and carefully.
Suppose the US government decided that, in order to vote in federal elections, a citizen would have to take an IQ test, and anyone scoring below 90 would not be permitted to vote. That law would, of course, be applied equally to everyone, without exception. Would that be discriminatory?
The answer, of course, would be "yes." It would discriminate against the stupid and the illiterate. It would be unfair to people who aren't very good at taking tests. And it would weigh heavily against the poor and disadvantaged, who might not have the same opportunities at education as the rest of the citizenry.
Under the constitution, the government may not discriminate against a segment of the population when conferring benefits or protecting rights, unless there is some compelling reason for that discrimination. For instance, many states have restrictions on the voting rights of ex-felons, but there is at least some compelling governmental reason for that restriction. On the other hand, it is abundantly clear that the US has never come up with a compelling reason to bar stupid people from participating in the political process. A law that imposed an IQ test on voters, therefore, would be unconstitutionally discriminatory,
even though it was applied consistently and equally.
Now, turning to the issue of marriage, we also have a law that is applied consistently and equally to everybody. A law that states that a person may only marry someone of the opposite sex, however, clearly discriminates against those who would want to marry someone of the same sex. The government also confers various civil benefits upon married persons that it does not confer to those who, although they might be in an affective relationship with another person, are not married.
For unmarried heterosexuals in affective relationships, the analogy with joining a club is apt: heterosexuals, after all, can always "join the club" (i.e. get married), because the law allows that. If they decide not to get married, then that is their decision. But for homosexuals, they don't have the option of "joining the club," because the law, which permits heterosexuals to marry anyone with whom they form an affective relationship, forbids homosexuals from doing the same.
For gays, then, the door to the clubhouse is locked: all the goodies inside the clubhouse are free for any heterosexual to take, but they are inaccessible to homosexuals. If marriage were a purely religious institution, with no civil benefits conferred based on marital status, there would be no dispute. But if the government is handing out goodies (benefits), the general rule is that it must hand them out either to everyone or to no one.
Now, of course, homosexuals are free to marry persons of the opposite sex, just like heterosexuals. What they cannot do, however, is marry someone that they actually
want to marry, which is a right reserved exclusively for heterosexuals under the current law. The law, in other words, would force homosexuals to do something that it does not require of heterosexuals in order to obtain the civil benefits associated with marriage. If heterosexuals can freely marry anyone they choose, then it is discrimination to prohibit homosexuals from doing the same.
The law, then, clearly discriminates against a certain class of persons. But, as pointed out above, sometimes it's all right for the government to discriminate --
when it has a compelling reason to do so. So the question isn't whether the marriage laws, as they currently exist, discriminate against gays: that's a given. The question, rather, is whether the government has a compelling interest in discriminating against gays.
Cycloptichorn, among others, has asked you to identify what harm would be done if gays were allowed to marry. In a roundabout way, that's the same as asking what compelling reason does the government have to discriminate against gays. If there is no reason to discriminate, then the law is clear: it is unconstitutional to withhold benefits from one group while conferring them on another absent some compelling state interest.
Even the fiercest opponents of gay marriage recognize that the current law discriminates against homosexuals, but they argue that there is a compelling reason for that discrimination to continue. Your task,
Foxfyre, is to identify that reason. So far, however, you have failed to do that.
