I don't really get the distinction between "legislation prohibiting marriages based on race" and "legislation prohibiting marriages based on sex".
I don't get where one was any more or less unconstitutional than the other - they both say, quite frankly, that certain people aren't equal. Or even worse, they imply that everyone's equal, but
some people are more equal than others.
I don't get why "marriage" needed to be defined as "one man and one woman" to protect the sanctity of marriage from "one man and another man" or "one woman and another woman" from getting married, as I don't see why a lifetime together for gary and stu is any less an example of love than mary and stu.
I don't see why Rudolph Valentino and Jean Acker's marriage of 6 hours needs protecting from the awfulness of two guys saying "I do" and living together to enjoy the same rights and priviledges in an equal society.
I don't see why Dennis Hopper and Michelle Phillips' marriage of 8 days needs protecting from the terrible curse of comparing it with two women saying "I love you" and tying the knot.
I don't get it.
Marriage needs protecting from the love of one person for another, based on how many penises and vaginas are in the mix? based on the amount of kids they can have?
yes, that's right - I forgot. Apparently marriage is only about having kids - so all those couples who can't have kids, or don't, marriage needs protecting from those heathens too, right?
marriage must need protecting from single mums and dads, yeah?
™ Version 4.2
