|
Edited on Thu Jul-27-06 11:21 AM by sui generis
if it's quoted.
So if the state has a rational interest in procreation, and marriage is the delivery mechanism, and the state is excluding people of the same sex from marriage because they can't technically procreate with each other, then that is the fallacy we have to attack.
When the state says that gay parents raising a child is not traditional and is harmful to the child's development, we have to prove there is neither a rational test nor a legal exclusion for gay opposite gender marriages to be licensed, nor is there a test for heterosexuality.
There is no such thing as "anti gay" in the law. It is sexual orientation. More specifically our rationale has been to fight on the term of "sexual" rather than "gender" and on "gender" rather than "affectional". We have bought their bullshit and we're fighting on their turf by doing so.
We need to take the battle further. Anywhere that "affectional orientation" discrimination is upheld, we need to establish that a legal non-hearsay test for heterosexuality exists. Otherwise, I would deny employment to people who are presumed hetersexual. I would deny entry to my gay restaurants, deny them credit with my company, deny them leases, mortgages, and even deny selling them gas at my gas stations and groceries at my grocery stores.
I want it stamped on their ID's like their eye and hair color and height. I LOVE the idea of being able to discriminate against people based on their affectional orientation, and I think they should have to take an annual test to make sure they haven't changed or broadened their definitions. :sarcasm:
Seriously though, you are right; we're fighting stupid. Nobody gives a crap if our feelings are hurt. Nobody believes it could also happen to them, so we need to make it happen to them.
|