Why do the lawyers argue that a ban on gay marriage is discrimination on the basis...

H

Healthy Person

New member
...of sexual orientation? When in fact, it's not.

It's actually: Discrimination on the basis of GENDER.


Is there a difference between who a straight man can marry and who a gay man can marry? NO. They can both marry the same selection of people.


Is there a difference between who a man can marry and who a woman can marry? YES. Thus, discrimination on the basis of gender.


Ted Olson is taking this case to federal courts arguing it's discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation............

Why doesn't he mention that it's also discrimination on the basis of gender?
That would be a much stronger argument because gender is a protected class under the U.S. constitution, where as, orientation is not a protected class.
 
What's happening is this; they are redefining gender, and saying that gender is not physical, but biological, none the less. In essence, what you think you ate is what you are. So, under that definition, gay people have a distinct gender. I am for equal rights for all people including gay people. They should have the right to the pursuit of happiness like the rest of us. But this approach is a sham.
 
What's happening is this; they are redefining gender, and saying that gender is not physical, but biological, none the less. In essence, what you think you ate is what you are. So, under that definition, gay people have a distinct gender. I am for equal rights for all people including gay people. They should have the right to the pursuit of happiness like the rest of us. But this approach is a sham.
 
I think you're mistaken. Homosexual men and women are both discriminated against equally in that scenario- neither is allowed to legally marry their chosen partners.
 
It shouldn't be relevant. The ten amendments were not exclusive rights, in fact many states didn't want them on the Constitution because they seemed to LIMIT natural rights. What business has government in marriage? Gender, whatever. It infringes on rights of the individual.
 
Because that would sound like pointless prevarication. The actual issue *really is* the validity of homosexual marriage, and by extension, homosexuality as a way of life.

I think if anything it calls attention and leaves one open to the 'homosexuals are free to marry someone of the same gender' argument, instead of averting it. Yes, it's stupid and makes as much sense as saying that vegetarians don't need different meals because they're as free as anyone else to eat fish, but it doesn't need to be brought up at all.

Why try to be cleverly indirect when there's nothing wrong with the main thrust of your argument? Homosexuality IS a valid way of life. Trying to reframe it as a gender issue just makes it seem like you're trying to skip over that.
 
Correct. It's technically discrimination based on gender to deny homosexuals the right to marry.

I think you are correct and it's somewhat surprising a lawyer would not think that far. Maybe however he thinks he can argue a way we don't think of, maybe he believes sexual orientation opens other and better ways to open up marriage
 
You are absolutely crazy if you think "sexual orientation" is different from "gender identification." The biggest sex organ in any human being is their brain. That is where "gender identification" resides. That's where the desire for sex resides, i.e., which way a person is sexually "oriented." Believe me, without a brain, the penis and vagina would be worthless. Call it what you want but the discrimination takes the form of not allowing same-sex partners to have rights of survivorship (social security) or they are not allowed to make end-of-life decisions for their partner, or they may not be allowed to put their partner on a health insurance plan through work. These examples, and there are more, is what the discrimination does to same-sex couples. Gender bias is only bias based on gender, i.e., discrimination based on being female or male. (Like in schools that don't offer a girl's football team. The girls must be allowed to play on the boys' team. That's law. Anything different would be gender bias.
 
Back
Top