Gay marriage

The significance of Loving v. Virginia was the labeling of marriage as a basic civil right. Plain and simple. Marriage = basic civil right." Yes, marriage is a civil right I completely agree. Marriage-the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. "Since when are rights and arguments about rights going to be restricted by what the dictionary says?" If rights cannot be restricted by the definition of the words then anyone could change anything they wanted in the constitution fitting to whatever agenda they support. "Treated equally means that they all have the right to marry" They do have the right to marry fitting with the definition itself. Gay marriage is not a right its a fallacy. "No. Not under the Fourteenth Amendment." Yes, we are all equal for reasons explained above. "The definition doesn't matter" Of course the definition matters, the definition matters in any logical debate. "the rights of law-abiding citizens who want to enter into a homosexual marriage are not being upheld" Again, "Gay marriage" incorrect usage of the word marriage. "a basic civil right, because of Loving v. Virginia. This is very straightforward." Loving vs. Virginia ruled that one man and one woman regardless of race have the basic civil right to marry. Yes, it is straight forward. "This is completely irrelevant. We are discussing whether or not the right to homosexual marriage is protected by the Constitution." It is not irrelevant I was making the point that the constitution does not protect gay marriage based on the definition of the word. I then made a side point that their is just a wording difference between the word marriage and the word civil union and that we all have the same rights in the end. "Lawrence has the effect of invalidating similar laws throughout the United States that purport to criminalize sodomy between consenting same-sex adults acting in private." You just made my same exact argument I used against Loving vs. Virginia. Here is a line of Loving vs. Virginia: "There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy. " Notice the words "interracial marriages" the court ruled that interracial marriages(between one man and one woman) is a civil right. Lets replace the word marriage real quick by the definition of the word itself. The court ruled that the interracial social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments and religious ceremonies is a "basic civil right" So, even though they did not specifically say that they should be opposite sex couples the word marriage implies that. Just as Lawrence vs. Texas ruled that it must be between consenting adults. Loving vs. Virginia ruled that marriage must be between one man and one woman. "They can't legally give consent. Period." Gays can't legally get married. Period. "Sorry if I have to spell it out. Health risks from incestuous relationships = mental retardation and birth defects. Yeah, that's a good reason not to allow marriages." So, are those marriages protected by the constitution as long as the man sterilizes himself? "Refuted above." Have not refuted it above. "Marriage, a basic civil right of man as outlined in Loving v. Virginia, is protected by the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." Agreed.