Ugh. Is it really so hard to wrap quote tags around my comments and then respond outside those tags?
1. Irrelevant. The issue is whether a constitutional or legislative action banning same sex marriage treats a suspect class differently.
And some states have already identified sexual orientation as a suspect or quasi-suspect class.
2. Pedophilia is readily distinguished by the lack of consent.
So is inappropriate behavior with animals and and whatever the identifying term for sex with inanimate objects is.
3. The issue is not whether homosexuals have been discriminated against "for centuries" but whether or not it is a suspect class. Ugly people have been discriminated against for centuries but they are not considered a suspect class. This is law not ethics or morality.
Why is the issue whether homosexuals are a suspect class? You don't have to be a suspect class to be unlawfully discriminated against.
4. Under the current 14th Amendment jurisprudence they are not a suspect class.
Then how are laws banning discrimination based on sexual orientation Constitutional?
5. Loving v. Virginia was a case about racial discrimination. Race is a suspect class under the existing case law, sexual orientation is not.
See above,
6. You are confused. A State needs a compelling basis for discrimination against a suspect class, which is a much higher standard than a mere rational basis.
If sexual orientation is NOT a suspect class, then any laws discriminating against people because of their sexual orientation fall under the rational basis review test. Since discrimination against homosexuals who wish to marry does not even pass the rational review test, it is irrelevant whether homosexuals are a suspect class according to the federal government.
Your secular comment is misapplied since the Supreme Court has no ecclesiastical jurisdiction.
No, I'm simply saying that the laws of our country cannot be based on religious beliefs unless there is a secular reason to do so.
7. Does permitting same sex marriage decrease population?
No. It may not increase population but unless married same-sex couples are out there murdering people, then same-sex marriage does decrease the population.
You may recall a certain Episcopal bishop, Gene Robinson, who "came out" after he had married a woman and had children with her. If same sex marriage were then legal, His Grace may have decided against marrying his wife and having children with her.
Probably, but in that situation the population would not have increased by however many children he had. A failure to increase is not a decrease, it is stasis.
I've never really understood this argument. It's not like heterosexual couples are going to stop having children if same-sex marriage is legalized.
Would permitting same sex marriage result in more people avoiding legal marriage?
I don't see how. There is no logical reason why allowing SSM would result in a decrease in overall marriage numbers. In fact, logically it seems the opposite would be true.
The State has a vested interest in seeing people married for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is to put an additional person to be responsible for another's welfare.
I don't see how SSM would decrease that. Not to mention that I fail to see how that is a legitimate state interest that would be protected by disallowing SSM.
8. Who said anything about trusting the public? All I am concerned with is the legal issues at bar.
You did, when you said
Then again, there are many people who are against it, as demonstrated by the referendum, and refusing to listen to the public's demands always has costs.
I prefer the gender discrimination argument as it is more consistent with the existing jurisprudence. I am wary of extending the definition of suspect classes, because it is rather burdensome.
As I pointed out, there is no reason for homosexuals to be designated as a suspect class for them to be protected from discrimination.