T
Hello!
I am going to try to answer the original question on this thread to the best of my ability. The argument you raise, namely that homosexuals are not facing discrimintation becuase they have all the same rights as hetereosexuals, specificallly the right to marry someone of the oppositite gender, has been addressed previously by the supreme court in the case of Loving v. Virginia. In that case, the court adressed the legality of state's miscegenation laws. The argument there was that there was no discrimination becuase everyone had the same rights. Everyone had the same right to marry somone of his or her own race. The court rejected this argument and ruled that freedom of marriage was one of the fundamental human rights in a civil society and could not be restricted on the basis of race. The basic idea is that the government may not restrict a basic human right without a legitimate compelling state interest and none could be found here.
I fully understand that the issues are different in the case of homosexualy. I'm not raising this case to argue the point, but only to address your original question which was how homosexuals can claim to be denied a right. When and if this case goes before the Supreme Court, the argument will almost certainly turn on whether the state has a legimitate interest to regulate here and not whether rights are being denied.
I am going to try to answer the original question on this thread to the best of my ability. The argument you raise, namely that homosexuals are not facing discrimintation becuase they have all the same rights as hetereosexuals, specificallly the right to marry someone of the oppositite gender, has been addressed previously by the supreme court in the case of Loving v. Virginia. In that case, the court adressed the legality of state's miscegenation laws. The argument there was that there was no discrimination becuase everyone had the same rights. Everyone had the same right to marry somone of his or her own race. The court rejected this argument and ruled that freedom of marriage was one of the fundamental human rights in a civil society and could not be restricted on the basis of race. The basic idea is that the government may not restrict a basic human right without a legitimate compelling state interest and none could be found here.
I fully understand that the issues are different in the case of homosexualy. I'm not raising this case to argue the point, but only to address your original question which was how homosexuals can claim to be denied a right. When and if this case goes before the Supreme Court, the argument will almost certainly turn on whether the state has a legimitate interest to regulate here and not whether rights are being denied.