Govt Drops Defense of Anti-Gay Marriage Law

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
261

[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Universal Rule Utilitarianism can be used to unjustly criticize any number of otherwise harmless practices.

For example: You are a Catholic. Ascetics under the Rule of St. Benedict live under a vow of absolute chastity. The logic with which you condemned homosexuality works to condemn religious chastity as well.

But it doesn’t even matter because, thankfully, law in the United States does not consider universal rule utilitarianism.[/quote]

I’m not fully aware of Universal Rule Utilitarianism, I have not gotten to that, yet. Would you explain to me how it works in this case of the of a vow of absolute chastity?[/quote]

If value judgments are to be made on the basis of utilitarianism, many otherwise harmless practices and many aspects of everyday human life become “immoral.”

So, we take an action and we ask whether its existence betters or worsens the human condition. The most extreme way for us to do this is to imagine if every single human being on earth were to suddenly adopt the practice in question. Then we can easily see its impact on earthly life. In such a light, homosexuality is obviously detrimental to the human race–if we suddenly all turned gay, the human race would see itself extinguished within a century.

But the same applies to Monks under vows of celibacy. And many other people and practices throughout the world. If we all suddenly decided to live under the Rule of St. Benedict, the children born today would be the last to walk the earth. Judged solely for its universal utility, celibacy is immoral.

The point is that one human being’s behavior cannot be labeled “moral” or “immoral” on the sole basis of universal rule utilitarianism without the condemnation of many, many otherwise harmless human activities. Universal Rule Utilitarianism condemns with far too broad a stroke.[/quote]

That’s a vocation, not an act. That’s like saying it’s immoral to be an engineer over a doctor. And, not all people can be monk, even if they wanted to.

Now, if you were just to isolate the act of taking the vow of celibacy, then yes I suppose you could say that is immoral. Just like isolating the act of killing someone from the vocation of soldier can be seen as immoral, because if everyone did that then within a generation we would all be dead (as well, we could say as some countries did requiring celibacy from their soldiers, that if every man become soldier we’d be burning the candle at both ends and die off even if we were in a time of peace). However, it’s not, a soldier kills those that are enemy combatants, which their act of killing that person actually helps the human flourish (protecting the innocent masses from death and slavery). Just as the Benedictine Monks in Northern Europe helped the Barbarians and Vikings turn around and flourish and stop killing each other.[/quote]

Both of your arguments are invalid.

Chris,

Given your religious beliefs, would you say that prostitution is immoral? Because, last I checked, it’s definitely a vocation, regardless of whether or not you accept it as one, it is (i.e. people have this “job”).
[/quote]

Prostitution is a vocation, but it is intrinsically evil as it hurts the family both physically (in the case of diseases) as well as the relationship of the family.

[quote]
Smh…

So the impact of behavior on the welfare of the community/human population should be taken into consideration? If a gay couple means a couple that cannot have children and that this inability is somehow “wrong” because they can’t reproduce, then what about straight couples who do no want kids? Are they “wasting” their marital union on a lifestyle that won’t result in offspring?[/quote]

How is not wanting kids the same as participating in homosexual acts? One is a disposition and the other an act.

262

[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:
Why don’t they just give the same tax/legal benefits to gay couples and call their “marriage” something else?

Not asking like it’s the first time this idea has come up; I’m curious what anti-gay “marriage” people have to say or what pro-gay “marriage” people have to say about it. I’m not sure I’ve ever heard a legit response to that inquiry.

Religious people,

Would you be ok with calling it a civil union or whatever and giving them identical benefits for their “status” ? [/quote]

No.

263

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
How about we scrap marriage and give people cohabitation benefits, and child-raising benefits? Why not make “being married” about meeting criteria regarding the relationship between people, rather than an abstract idea that may or may not tell something about their relationship?[/quote]

Why not just scrap it and not give anyone benefits?

264

[quote]forlife wrote:
convictions against homosexuality[/quote]

I’ve told you over and over again, I do not have anything against homosexuals. I have a problem with those that act on that, as well I vote equal benefits for gay couples and straight couples…nothing from the State.

265

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Spartacus32 wrote:

This is getting really sad. Again, the fact that he said the words ‘standard of review’ does not mean that he is using a legal standard of review on his case. A judge cannot review (overturn) his own case, it is that simple. The reason for the heading is simply to show that the statements in that section apply to how his ruling will be viewed by an appellate court. I have provided the definition of standard of review as it applies to court proceedings in the United States. You just threw a bunch of words together and said that since this group of words can mean standard of review by taking the English Dictionary definitions of each individual words that make up the phrase ‘standard of review’ then that is what it is. It does not work that way. What a legal standard of review is is clearly defined. Just try to find a single legal dictionary or legal professional that will say that your definition applies to legal proceedings in the U.S.[/quote]

This is kinda fun, I have to admit. The court says on page 123: PROPOSITION 8 DOES NOT SURVIVE RATIONAL BASIS - Proposition 8 cannot withstand any level of scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause, as excluding same-sex couples from marriage is simply not rationally related to a legitimate state interest.

The standard of review is “rational basis”:

The rational basis review tests whether a governmental action is a reasonable means to an end that may be legitimately pursued by the government. This test requires that the governmental action be �¢??rationally related�¢?? to a �¢??legitimate�¢?? government interest. Under this standard of review, the �¢??legitimate interest�¢?? does not have to be the government�¢??s actual interest. Rather, if the court can merely hypothesize a �¢??legitimate�¢?? interest served by the challenged action, it will withstand the rational basis review.

“Rational basis” review is a standard of review. Period. Always has been, it’s not a matter of semantics. Trial courts, in fact, apply “rational basis” review of challenged laws, because they are being asked to rule on its constitutionality. A trial court can’t rule on the unconstitutionality of a law until it applies the appropriate standard of review. That isn’t up for debate.

In Walker’s case, he reviewed under the standard of review known as “rational basis” listed above and held that the law was not rational.

The “review” in this “standard of review” was not a higher court’s “review” of a lower court, but the trial court’s “review” of the challenged law itself under the standard of review of “rational basis”. This isn’t tricky, junior. In opinions, trial courts note the standard of review that they apply as a matter of course.

The weakness of Walker’s opinion (one of them) is that he said the classification deserved “strict scrutiny”, but did not permit interlocutory appeal of the case which would have forced the 9th Circuit to consider that determination and remand. Had he done so, his trial would have been conducted very differently.

And this question over which standard of review was chosen by Walker - rational basis? strict scrutiny? intermediate scrutiny? - was crucial to the case and the appeal. That you have exactly no idea about this isn’t surprising, and that is why I asked you about it - to see if you had an opinion on it.

Because you didn’t, it was clear that you didn’t know the issues at stake in the case, and were basically just blabbering ignorance - which, as we have learned from your clown show on “standard of review” you are doubling down on out of pride - but alas.

You said to consult a legal professional who might know a thing or two about this kind of stuff - good idea.

EDIT: added Wikipedia link.[/quote]

You just keep digging yourself a deeper hole. I am not arguing, nor have I argued that rational basis is not a standard of review. I am explaining how a standard of review works in the legal system of the United States. A standard of review can only be used on a judicial ruling that is being questioned in a higher court (appeal or Supreme) and can only be set by the higher court.
A judge cannot appeal his own ruling, nor can he review his own ruling. It is just ridiculous that you seem to think that is what happened. Also, a trial court cannot set a standard of review. Moreover, since a standard of review sets a binding legal precedent, the only way to overturn it to request the Supreme Court to review the case. This case has not yet been reviewed by the appellate court so obviously a standard of review has not been set. What Judge Walker did was explain why he gave his ruling and why it will stand up to an appeal and an actual standard of review. This is not uncommon at all. How are you not getting this? Oh, I forgot to mention this in the last post but you are a moron.

266

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
reduce STD transmission[/quote]

Lol @ your logic. That’s great, let the group with the highest STD rate in the world get married. That’ll solve all the problems. You really think a piece of paper and benefits will change someone that is undisciplined in faith and chaste outside marriage will be able to be faithful and chaste inside a marriage?

That is one high hope for human kind, sir. I do not hold that same hope, at all.

267

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Um, thats not the idea there. The idea is that people are less likely to cheat on a spouse than they are a boyfriend/girlfriend (because they are conditioned to hold the relationship in higher esteem).
[/quote]

I’m sure that infidelity statistics prove you right, because you know infidelity is so low inside marriage, even though premarital sex is high. Those unprincipled are unprincipled. A paper does not change that, sorry.

268

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
need our paternalistic hand to save them from themselves?[/quote]

lol

269

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Um, thats not the idea there. The idea is that people are less likely to cheat on a spouse than they are a boyfriend/girlfriend (because they are conditioned to hold the relationship in higher esteem).[/quote]

And? The answer to this is simply “so what?” if it doesn’t pertain to the focus of marriage, which is the prevention of illegimate children.

Is it your position that we need to enact gay marriage to protect homosexuals from self-destructing in their own community because they can’t act responsibly as individuals and need our paternalistic hand to save them from themselves?[/quote]

The focus of marriage is to ameliorate problems in the heterosexual community, especially those that effect the rest of society as well. I’m making the case that allowing homosexuals to marry would ameliorate problems in the homosexual community, especially those that effect the rest of society as well.
[/quote]

It won’t, just as marriage doesn’t help straight people become faithful if they weren’t faithful before. There has to be something else that has to happen, marriage is not going to do that.

270

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

I have the right to vote, correct? I have the right to run for office and lead, correct? Okay, I have the right to freedom of conscience, in which I vote and lead as I see right in my conscience. Government is for the sake of society, government’s sole purpose is to protect society and to help society to flourish.[/quote]

Yes, you do have these rights. You may not, however, use these rights to deny other citizens the same rights you enjoy. That is one of the points of the 14th amendment states. It does not specify blacks. It specifies citizens. I have provided evidence to support my argument in earlier posts. You have provided no legal proof that DOMA does not violate the constitution. You have just said a bunch of shit that has no substance and means nothing in a court of law, which is where the matter is being decided now.

The challengers to the law are responsible for proving their arguments regarding the constitutionality of the law in question. The defense is not obligated by either the rule of law or the constitution to defend the law. If the law is constitutional it will stand on its own. That being said, if the defense does not defend the law, it is not likely to win.

The 14th amendment was ratified after the abolition of slavery genius. I have already pointed out the 14th amendment is applicable to all citizens just read it. Also, when Judge Walker’s ruling makes it through the appeal process (and it will) which will probably mean the Supreme Court, marriage will no longer be allowed just between a man and a woman. Deal with it. Or go cry in a corner. Either way it is going to happen.

271

In all my years of logging into PWI, I don’t think I have ever seen such.

[quote]Spartacus32 wrote:

You just keep digging yourself a deeper hole. I am not arguing, nor have I argued that rational basis is not a standard of review. I am explaining how a standard of review works in the legal system of the United States. A standard of review can only be used on a judicial ruling that is being questioned in a higher court (appeal or Supreme) and can only be set by the higher court. [/quote]

Incorrect - the phrase “standard of review” also means the legal standard by which a law will be reviewed in a lawsuit by the trial court. And, it is used in this context by non-appellate trial courts sating what standard they will be utilizing in their initial decision. It can be “set” by the lower court, and is subject to review by an appellate court. Everything you typed above is wrong.

I don’t think that has happened - I think the trial court (Walker) enunciated the standard of review he was applying in his case (which is the most interesting and salient part of the case). The appellate court will do several things: (1) it will decide whether Walker chose the proper standard of review, (2) if it decides he didn’t, it will send the case back to him and tell him to “do it over” with the right standard of review, (3) if he decides he did, it will determine whether he came to the right conclusion under the standard of review he chose (subject to a level of deference). Everything you said is wrong.

With respect to a legal challenge as to the constitutionality of a law, yes, it does “set” a standard of review - a standard of review by which the law itself at the trial level (not the court’s decision) will be reviewed and ruled upon. Everything you said was wrong.

Incorrect - the original decision had a standard of review “set” as strict scrutiny and rational basis (see the pages I directed you to). Whether Walker “set” it right or not is one of the aspects that is subject to review in the 9th Circuit. Everything you wrote is wrong.

You simply have no idea what you are talking about. But let’s bird dog it, just to make the point:

  1. Have you attended or graduated from law school?
  2. Have you ever been admitted to the practice of law?
  3. Do you practice law currently?
  4. Have you ever worked on a case whereby the constitutionality of a law has been challenged?
  5. If a lawyer told you you had this all wrong, would you defer to her opinion?

Here’s the thing - I get it. You really don’t know much about this. If you did, the moment I said “what about Walker’s standard of review?”, you would have launched into a discussion about his weird unorthodoxy on rational basis or how he technically did hold that strict scrutiny did apply, and that is weird, because strict scrutiny has never applied to the category of sexual orientation before, etc.

Instead, you began spouting a bunch of nonsense proving you don’t know shit from shinola about the standard of review of the law in this case.

But you desperately try and save face by refusing to yield to the clear fact that, no, you don’t understand the standard of review or why it matters to what Walker decided. You are one in a long line here at PWI.

272

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
In all my years of logging into PWI, I don’t think I have ever seen such.

Incorrect - the phrase “standard of review” also means the legal standard by which a law will be reviewed in a lawsuit by the trial court. And, it is used in this context by non-appellate trial courts sating what standard they will be utilizing in their initial decision. It can be “set” by the lower court, and is subject to review by an appellate court. Everything you typed above is wrong.[/quote]

What you have just described here is called ‘judicial review’ the term is even linked on that cute little wikipedia page you linked.You may want to click on it. By the way, read that page you linked again. Nowhere in it does it say ‘standard of review.’

Replace ‘standard of review’ with ‘judicial review’ or ruling and your number one is correct. Seriously man, get a legal dictionary if you want to argue legal terms with me. Now on to your number 2 point, the court of appeals does not send a case back the original court. It will either set a high deference standard of review (the ruling will not be changed) or a low deference standard of review (the ruling will be either changed or overturned). Any changes will be made by the appellate court. Since your legal knowledge seems to come from wikipedia, you should read these:

Take your time reading these. Read them several times. Take advil for headaches. Midol for cramps.

Again, using the Judiciary review link on your wikipedia page:
" In American legal language, “judicial review” refers primarily to the adjudication of constitutionality of statutes, especially by the Supreme Court of the United States. This is commonly held to have been established in the case of Marbury v. Madison, which was argued before the Supreme Court in 1801."

No it wasn’t. Rational basis review is part of both part of judicial review and standard of review. The term standard of review only applies when a higher court is reviewing the decision of a lower court. In the federal court, the district court is the lowest court. No court can review itself. What you are trying to say is standard of review is called judicial review.

No. I have been accepted to the University of Pittsburgh School of Law, but will not be attending until at least next year.

Have you?

Questions 2,3,4, see 1. What are your answers.

My father is a federal judge. I have e-mailed him all of your posts. He agrees with me that you are a moron. He thought it was especially funny when you linked that wikipedia article that not once mentions standard of review but specifically refers to judicial review and you still tried to use it in your argument.

273

Given that I am now charged with teaching “Remedial Law” to Spartacus, let’s grab an explanation from a professor of law at UW-Madison as to what Judge Walker was up to in his case. Prior to the case being tried, Professor Schweber noted what the court was charged with doing:

[i]That brings us to the second question: what are the main issues to watch for? A (very) little explanation. Any case about a constitutional challenge to a law has two parts: first the judge has to decide what standard of review to apply, then he or she has to decide whether the law in question violates that standard.

By gum, I feel like I have heard that said somewhere before. That’s right - I’ve been saying it this whole time.

Spartacus - quick, you better email this professor of constitutional law at UW-Madison and let him know he’s got it all wrong. Let me know what he says. Thanks.

274

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Given that I am now charged with teaching “Remedial Law” to Spartacus, let’s grab an explanation from a professor of law at UW-Madison as to what Judge Walker was up to in his case. Prior to the case being tried, Professor Schweber noted what the court was charged with doing:

[i]That brings us to the second question: what are the main issues to watch for? A (very) little explanation. Any case about a constitutional challenge to a law has two parts: first the judge has to decide what standard of review to apply, then he or she has to decide whether the law in question violates that standard.

By gum, I feel like I have heard that said somewhere before. That’s right - I’ve been saying it this whole time.

Spartacus - quick, you better email this professor of constitutional law at UW-Madison and let him know he’s got it all wrong. Let me know what he says. Thanks.
[/quote]

I have e-mailed him and will post his response (it may take a day or two). It is likely that he just made a mistake or it was an editing error. Feel free to e-mail him yourself too schweber@polisci.wisc.edu

275

[quote]Spartacus32 wrote:

What you have just described here is called ‘judicial review’ the term is even linked on that cute little wikipedia page you linked.You may want to click on it. By the way, read that page you linked again. Nowhere in it does it say ‘standard of review.’[/quote]

Uh, no - judicial review is the general power of a court to review a law’s viability (or not). The standard of review is the legal measuring stick that judges will use when conducting judicial review. This is getting hilarious.

Negative, ghost rider - judicial review and standard of review are not synonomous. Standards of review are also enunciated in orders from the court on summary judgment, as an example of where else it used (outside of constitutionality challenges).

[quote]Again, using the Judiciary review link on your wikipedia page:
" In American legal language, “judicial review” refers primarily to the adjudication of constitutionality of statutes, especially by the Supreme Court of the United States. This is commonly held to have been established in the case of Marbury v. Madison, which was argued before the Supreme Court in 1801."[/quote]

More proof you have no idea what you’re talking about. “Judicial review” is the constitutional power for a court to review the constitutionality of a statute. “Judicial review” doesn’t describe the specifics as to how they are “judicially reviewed” - an Equal Protection challenge does not, for example, have the same type of review as a Commerce Clause challenge. The details as to how a statute gets “judicially reviewed” is in the “standards of review”.

Completely false. There is just no other way to say it. But not surprising - you’ve been making it up as you go this whole time.

The “standard of review” is the test by which a court conducts “judicial review”. Amazing that you keep this up. Truly.

[quote]1. Have you attended or graduated from law school?

No. I have been accepted to the University of Pittsburgh School of Law, but will not be attending until at least next year.

Questions 2,3,4, see 1. What are your answers.[/quote]

I’ve leave that open for now. Needless to say, if you had answered yes, I’d be reporting you for malpractice.

[quote]5. If a lawyer told you you had this all wrong, would you defer to her opinion?

My father is a federal judge. I have e-mailed him all of your posts. He agrees with me that you are a moron. He thought it was especially funny when you linked that wikipedia article that not once mentions standard of review but specifically refers to judicial review and you still tried to use it in your argument.[/quote]

This is nothing short of an absolute lie.

Oh, and just to pile on, here is what the Wikipedia entry provided, highlighted for your convenience:

Under this standard of review, the â??legitimate interestâ?? does not have to be the governmentâ??s actual interest. Rather, if the court can merely hypothesize a â??legitimateâ?? interest served by the challenged action, it will withstand the rational basis review.

The trial court is vested with constitutional authority to take first crack at deciding whether a statute violates the constitution or not. In order to do so, it must first establish the appropriate standard of review, then apply the facts to that chosen standard of review. This is writ - nothing controversial about it.

Seriously, why don’t you have sense enough to stop embarrassing yourself?

276

“Remedial law”, session two for Spartacus.

In the attached case, the parties disagree as to the appropriate standard of review. The trial court must choose one, and so holds in its section titled “Standard of Review”:

COMPAC contends that the challenged ordinance is subject to strict scrutiny, because it
imposes a content-based expenditure limit on an independent political committee. (Memorandum
and Points of Authority in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment or Partial Summary Judgment
by All Plaintiffs at 16, hereafter â??Plaintiffsâ?? Motion,â?? Docket Item No. 10.) The Defendants contend that the ordinance is subject to a lower level of constitutional scrutiny because it is a contribution limit.

The court concludes:

Even though the harm to the COMPAC here is not as pronounced as in Lincoln Club, the
Court holds that the appropriate level of constitutional review is strict scrutiny: the restriction must be narrowly tailored to serve an overriding state interest.

http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/attachments/1651.pdf

Easy enough, if you can read - the trial court had to decide which standard of law applied as an initial legal threshold. Having established that the proper standard of review was strict scrutiny, the court went on to then apply that chosen standard and test the constitutionality of the ordinance being challenged.

Oddly, the federal district judge in the Northern District of California makes the same mistake Professor Schweber (and I) make. Spartacus, better email the judge too.

277

[quote]Spartacus32 wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

I asked you about the standard of review - a very important aspect to the decision and a huge aspect to the unorthodox manner Walker came to his decision - and it’s clear you have absolutely no idea what I am talking about. You didn’t address the issue or even provide a relevant response. [/quote]

This is actually my fault. I let your use of the term ‘standard of review’ slide since you obviously have no idea what you are talking about and instead presented an argument about Judge Walker’s ruling. Since you decided to go ahead and bring personal insults into this, let me apologize now for not going ahead and pointing out what an idiot you are. [/quote]

Sorry I’m late to the party on this one, but I do have to say Thunderbolt is anything but an idiot. He’s one of the more intelligent posters here.

278

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Somewhat - the problems you speak of in the homosexual community that need correcting don’t rise to the level of significant social problems generally, it’s true. But, in in any event, marriage wouldn’t do much to solve them, no matter how insignificant they are to society at large, which was my point earlier.

But this is mostly irrelevant, as this “corrective” theory is not the primary reason proponents want to see it enacted anyway.
[/quote]

Its relevant to the conversation because you brought it up. And again, I obviously disagree, I think it would do quite a bit to solve many of the problems for the gay community (if it influences the straight community to be less homophobic, could we file that under solving a problem?)

So, uh, what exactly is your basis for the poly/incest/beastial/child/whatever else predictions? It hasn’t happened anywhere else but it would most certainly happen here? Bad logic.

Ok, so your argument there is that the risk of death, being solely on the person, isn’t the same as the risk of a child, which affects society mroe greatly? Or that the risk of death should be enough of a deterrant on its own?

Also, you see marriage as “rules” rather than “rewards”?

Finally, I noticed that you and lucasa both touched on the same subject (the original intent of marriage), but claimed different things - you, that it was created to control unwanted children, him, that it was a social institution using women to gain social/political/financial advancement. These seem to be contradictory accounts.

279

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

Its relevant to the conversation because you brought it up. [/quote]

No, I’m saying it’s largely irrelevant to the main argument for enactment because proponents are not urging the enactment of gay marriage to help solve an STD crisis in the community. It’s a post-hoc rationalization.

A. It wouldn’t do that. B. Our society isn’t suffering from systemic homophobia, i.e., there is no problem to be corrected here. C. “feelgood” legislation designed to do nothing more than promote “tolerance” is a fool’s errand - the reason has to be more compelling than that to reform an ancient institution.

No, that’s the point - it’s a logical conclusion. You seem to suggest that because these other events didn’t happen overnight, it stands to reason they won’t happen at all. That is illogical. Erosion takes time, and in any event, we’ve already seen adviocates of polygamy using this argument to urge legalizing their alternative lifestyle.

I’d think that risk of death would be a deterrant of its own. Shouldn’t it? And if it isn’t, why not?

Not “rather than” - it’s both, and always has been. Rights always come with responsibilities.

Not really, marriage served (and serves) a number of functions, including the ordering of property. But its primary function is to order families and childrearing, and this naturally entails affecting other aspects of that (status of women, primarlily in a time when they couldn’ hold property, inheritance, etc.). When society doesn’t have ruiles in place for this kind of stuff, it’s chaos and bloody.

You present a false choice - it’s not “either/or”, it’s a number of things. The protection of women (and advancement, to a certain extent) was part of it, but that relates directly to the larger need to order procreation (women who aren’t married but saddled with a child are in need of protection, etc.).

EDIT: underlined paragraph added due to error in original.

280

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
convictions against homosexuality[/quote]

I’ve told you over and over again, I do not have anything against homosexuals. I have a problem with those that act on that, as well I vote equal benefits for gay couples and straight couples…nothing from the State.[/quote]

Which is why I said, “convictions against homosexuality”, and not “convictions against homosexuals”. In the end though, either conviction results in discriminatory policies and laws.

It’s true that if the State were to stop granting any benefits for marriage, the discrimination would go away. But until that happens (and we both know it won’t), the current laws are in fact discriminatory.