Take the robes off for a minute and meet me human to human. Except for Scalia, because everyone knows he’s free ballin’.
Let’s pretend for a moment your Court agrees to hear the case re: gay marriage, equal rights for LGBT humans, etc, the outcome of which would force every state to recognize such marriages, extend benefits etc for them.
You realize there is only 1 possible way to argue against equal protection under the law for these US citizens, right?
Provided their citizenship is not in dispute (which should still not be an issue but we are discussing U.S. law), opponents of gay marriage, equal rights must be able to:
(a) prove that gay humans are actually not human and shouldn’t be extended such constitutional protections to begin with – since it is a document undeniably written by humans for humans.
Yes, it was written to structure the United States, most importantly all the citizens born or naturalized within its jurisdiction, not animals or plants or aardvarks or mosquitoes ad nausannoyingum.
Equal protection is a constitutional protection for all citizens. It’s a summary judgment, there’s nothing to dispute here (what facts?). And I’m pretty certain there exists no precedent or authority to defend the above because such a position is insane with no evidence to support it.
They are human beings who happen to experience the ever elusive love for one another. Ultimately, if you dissent, you are, by extension, implying that these human beings aren’t able to have such an experience.
Do the responsible thing and reverse regressive, inhumane state laws that ultimately dictate the direction and the object of love one human being can have for another.
I have no agenda here. I’m a heteroflexible fighter for LGBT justice because I’m a humanist. And the only entities who have any right to interfere with the deeply personal and private experience of love are those who are experiencing it together.
discursivedesign 
Leave a comment