"Kevin Gowen" <kgowenNOSPAM@myfastmail.com> wrote in message
news:2ou8pdFd9vt9U39@uni-berlin.de...
> mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:
>
> > Kevin Gowen <kgowenNOSPAM@myfastmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>Kevin Gowen <kgowenNOSPAM@myfastmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>>>>>Which civil right would that be?
> >
> >
> >
> >>>>>>>I would imagine even Florida could be expected to keep up with the
news,
> >>>>>>>Mr Gowen.
> >
> >
> >>>>>>Quite an imagination you have there if you think marriage, let alone
> >>>>>>same-sex marriage, is a right
> >
> >
> >>>>>Marriage is indeed a right, Mr Gowen.
> >
> >
> >>>>Sorry, but it is not.
> >
> >
> >>>Sorry, but it is.
> >
> >
> >>No, it is not, as I have explained in the text that you have snipped.
> >
> >
> > The fact that you do not understand something does not validate your
> > opinion. Marriage is, like a good many things, a civil right.
>
> By no definition of the term is it a civil right, or a right at all. How
> many rights can you name that are predicated on a license granted by the
> state?

Kevin, I get your point that marriage is not a fundamental right, but I
don't see anything wrong with calling it a right. Once the legislature
decides to allow people to avail themselves of the law that says they can
marry, it becomes a right. It is a right that can be taken away just as
easily as it was given of course, but it is still a right while it exists.

Of course the beef of those in support of same sex marriage (including
myself) is that it is a violation of equal protection for the state to
create a law and apply it in a manner that discriminates based on sex.
Precisely why there is an absurd amendment proposal floating out there. The
conservatives know that there is a big loophole and the only way to close it
is to put their wishes on a par with the fourteenth amendment by passing a
twenty eight. There are good argument on both sides regarding whether this
is indeed a violation of equal protection so I wouldn't characterize it as
clearly being a violation or clearly not being in violation, but I certainly
come down on the side of it being a violation and I hope our California
courts (and a much longer shot, the supreme court) come down that way as
well.

Jeff