You may as well be calling for same-sex public rest rooms, using the argument that separate-but-equal is unfair sexual discrimination.
Hi Hoot.
I think you have it backwards. If there were same-sex public rest rooms that
would be an example of separate but equal, just as having
colored restrooms and drinking fountains was separate but equal, and, most importantly, unconstitutional.
Rrhain, you and others here are advancing an argument that is purely opinion and nothing more.
Opinion is a claim that is not supported by premises. Rrhain and others have done nothing
but provide arguments in favor of equality and equal protection under the law.
There is no inherently moral right or legal entitlement that empowers homosexuals,...or any group that wants special treatment under the law.
As has been said repeatedly, the 14th amendment warrants equal protection under the law:
equal, not
special.
I’m afraid all that is only a matter of opinion and choice, not a matter of morality or heritability.
Again, as has been said by Rrhain and others, whether it is by choice or not is completely irrelevant. The law does not discriminate against followers of any religion, which is by choice, or against members of any racial group, which is heritable, and not by choice.
Here’s the bottom line, Rrhain. Let the homosexuals have their civil unions so that they can no longer claim to be legally disadvantaged.
Again, as said before, civil unions are the very definition of being disadvantaged. Separate and equal are negatives. Something cannot be separate and in the same breath be called equal, just as something cannot be called round and in the same breath be called not round.