[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
The First Amendment clearly protects Chic-Fil-A and its President. Chicago and Rohm Emanuel will probably lose a civil suit under 42 U.S.C Section 1983, which provides a remedy for con-law violations committed by a City or a City’s official acting under color of state law because they are denying–or intend to deny–Chic-Fil-A business privileges expressly because of its protected activity. I think Chicago and Emanuel also have run afoul of the equal-protection clause, because they are treating Chic-Fil-A differently and denying–or intend to deny–it privileges and benefits based on a reason that does not further a legitimate state interest, i.e., for an irrational or arbitrary reason, and a reason that violates the First Amendment. [/quote]
Decent.
[quote]In the same way, the equal protection clause should prevent a state from denying same-sex couples the right to marry, because the reasons for denying them the right to marry are irrational and don’t further any legitimate state interest. The only justification for denying gay couples the right to marry are because the union supposedly runs afoul of traditional religious values, but the state does not have a legitimate role in imposing religious values on minority groups. This isn’t an issue that should be subject to a vote.
The bill of rights, including the 1st amendment (speech and expression, establishment clause, etc.) and 5th amendment (equal protection), are designed to protect unpopular minorities from the will of the majority and prevent the state from acting for illegitimate or irrational reasons, like imposing state-sponsored religious values on a minority, or denying people privileges and benefits for irrational, arbitrary, or impermissible reasons.
If you are standing up for Chic-Fil-A as a matter of principle, and believe in limited government, then you ought to be standing up for gay marriage for the exact same reason, and vis versa.
[/quote]
Then you went off track. Marriage is an ancient tradition, neither the Church nor the State has control over marriage, in that they cannot change the form or matter of marriage. Though I can agree somewhat with the idea that removing benefits for actual marriage is a good thing for small government, I can’t agree that there should be same-sex unions recognized as marriages, because one…marriage is between a man and a woman. And, that is the opposite of small government. A small government wouldn’t attempt to change something it had no power to change, such as the definition of marriage.
As I mentioned, neither the state or church has any ability to change this. But, I also disagree that benefiting marriage is for furthering religious values and nothing else, I don’t even see how the American state can do that, because I’m not aware of any Church, Rabbi, &c. that recognizes state marriage as a religious ceremony, at least in the United States. However, it furthers the legitimate state interest of creating babies (tax payers) and for making happy couples so that their civilization can flourish.
So, yes I do support Chic-fil-A on principle, but no I do not support making same-sex unions equal to marriage. I don’t think our government has the power, nor would a small government have the power or inclination to change the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions.