necoandjeff wrote:
> 
> But I think we're confusing issues here. I am against the notion of
> preventing gays from marrying each other on a moral/personal level. In
> addition, I also think it is illegal to do so. Why? Because I believe the
> fourteenth amendment prevents the state from saying that it will recognize
> marriages, but not if the sex of the would-be spouses isn't what the state
> deems appropriate. Therefore, I'm against it *and* I think it is against the
> law.

Please tell me exactly what words in the Fourteenth Amendment lead you 
to that conclusion. On what basis is gender deemed an inappropriate 
basis for discrimination, but consanguinity is not? If we were talking 
various forms of civil rights legislation, you would be on nice, solid 
ground. If the Equal Rights Amendment had been ratified, you would be on 
firm ground. Using the Fourteenth puts you in pretty mucky terrain. 
"Everyone is allowed to marry, just not to people of the same sex", and 
"Everyone is allowed to marry, just not to people sharing an ancestor 
one generation away" are virtually equivalent logically. If the 
Fourteenth prohibits one form of discrimination, it prohibits the other. 
I believe it should be interpreted as prohibiting both. I would like to 
see an interpretation that distinguishes the two, and prohibits the one, 
but not the other.


KWW