Homosexuals are not physically incapable of heterosexual marriage, after all. It denies their liberty of conscience, and offers few benefits in exchange for great discomfort and anxiety, but they are as legally and physically capable of marrying someone of the opposite sex as I am of sticking my hand in a blender. The issue is that it is patently discriminatory to say some consenting adults but not others may enter into a valid legal contract, that the same legal agreement can be valid OR invalid solely on the basis of sex.

I note once again that a better analogy would be to saying, "gun bans are not discriminatory because they affect owners and non-owners equally."" As I said to Burr, justifying a law by saying those unaffected by it are equally affects is nonsense. It continues to fascinate me how those on opposite sides of the gay marriage issue will quickly and deftly swap rationales on guns. BOTH sides simultaneously and totally flip-flopping is an amazing testament to cognitive dissonance. 2' />


That does not make it a right; the need for ancillary laws defining marriage privileges and protections demonstrates how little standing it has as an inalienable right. A drivers license confers socioeconomic benefits and civil acceptance, too, but that gives no one a RIGHT to one. However, the Equal Protection Clause requires all state laws equally apply to everyone under their jurisdiction, whether or not those laws pertain to rights. The critical RIGHT here is to equal protection under the law, not marriage; a state arbitrarily (i.e. without cause) granting some people drivers licenses but not others would violate the Equal Protection Clause every bit as much, even though there is no constitutional right to a drivers license. US law does not allow declaring competent adults second class citizens.