Friday, September 4, 2015

A Year Later…

I can’t believe it’s been almost a year since I posted to my blog. I guess I’ve just been so busy on Facebook that I haven’t bothered to post anything here. What strikes me as tremendously unfortunate is that I’m compelled to post on roughly the same topic as my last post, and for very much the same reason. Hopefully I can find something else that warrants a long enough post to be worth this blog’s while. In the meantime, I hope you’ll enjoy this entry.

As many people probably know, the county clerk in Rowan County, Kentucky, Kim Davis, was recently jailed for having the audacity to uphold the Constitutions of both the United States of America and the Commonwealth of Kentucky, as per her oath of office. Of course, since people defending the Constitution cannot be tolerated in 21st-century Amerikkka, millions of people are supporting her illegal incarceration at the hands of a rogue district judge and a Supreme Court that recently ruled the Constitution null and void. One of these millions is my wife’s uncle Hank, who is a wonderful person, but stated the following on a thread on my Facebook timeline:
“The court ruling is based on the 14th amendment (ratified in 1868), which further clarified the 10th amendment. The 14th amendment prohibits state laws that restrict civil rights.
“The relevant passage is ‘No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.’ “The right to marry has long been recognized as a civil right to which every citizen is entitled. In 1967 in Virginia, the supreme court struck down a state law that prohibited interracial marriages. There is no substantive difference in this case. State law cannot prohibit marriage - even or same sex couples. “The supreme court did not ‘pass’ a law. Instead they nullified blatant discrimination and are enforcing the constitution. The county is not a religious institution, and is required to follow the law. The court eliminated one more form of illegal discrimination, and the confused clerk should resign her position if she wants to discriminate and fulfill her oath of supporting the constitution.
As my response is so long, I am doing what I have done several times in the past: posting it to blog for legibility’s sake. So Hank, the rest of this post is for you.

Hank, there are a few problems with your comment. I’ll attempt to deal with each separately.

1) I’m not sure how the 14th Amendment clarifies the 10th in any way relevant to Obergefell v. Hodges. The 10th Amendment states, in its entirety:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”
I can see where the portion of the 14th Amendment you cited can be construed as relevant to the 10th, but since Davis wasn’t doing that to anyone (nor was anyone doing it to Obergefell in the case that started this whole mess), this passage is also irrelevant.

2) The 14th Amendment *does* support Kim Davis, specifically in §3:
“No person shall … hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath … as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”
Not only has Davis not done this, but there are five relevant individuals who have done so and are somehow not in jail: namely, Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan; each of whom signed the majority opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges, which explicitly states that The US Constitution is trumped by any random individual’s personal opinion. Per the very amendment you’ve cited, their commission as Supreme Court justices is null and void, as is their ridiculous opinion.

3) You are correct that “The right to marry has long been recognized as a civil right to which every citizen is entitled.” However, that does not give individuals the right to enter into extramarital unions and have said unions recognized as marriages. The basis of contractual law in America is the fat that words have meaning. So if, for instance, I were to include in a contract the sentence “For the purposes of this contract, the word ‘table’ means ‘chair’,” that contract would automatically be null and void. Such is the case with people who attempt to claim that “For the purposes of this contract, the word ‘marriage’ means ‘garriage”.” It is equally illegal and must be struck down.

4) You are also correct that “In 1967 in Virginia, the supreme court struck down a state law that prohibited interracial marriages.” However, you are absolutely incorrect that “There is no substantive difference in this case.” The case you cite is Loving v. Virginia, which took issue with the Racial Integrity Act of 1924—specifically, the portion which states:
“It shall hereafter be unlawful for any white person in this State to marry any save a white person, or a person with no other admixture of blood than white and American Indian [criteria for what determines race omitted for brevity]. All laws heretofore passed and now in effect regarding the intermarriage of white and colored persons shall apply to marriages prohibited by this act.”
This very document proves its own invalidity: it recognizes the union of a white person and a black person as a marriage, which as SCOTUS correctly stated in the majority opinion, is “one of the ‘basic civil rights of man’.” However, this is not the case in Obergefell v. Hodges, in which the relevant passage in the Constitution of the state of Ohio was as follows:
“Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this state and its political subdivisions. This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage.”
Unlike the Racial Integrity Act of 1924, which rendered interracial marriages illegal, the Ohio Constitution did not render same-sex “marriages” illegal; it merely reiterated what everyone—including the Supreme Court—already understood, that the word “marriage” is defined as “a union between one man and one woman.” Both Obergefell and his boyfriend, John Arthur, were more than welcome to marry; they just couldn’t enter into a union that doesn’t meet the definition of marriage and expect the state to recognize it as such.

5) You claim that “The supreme court … nullified blatant discrimination and are enforcing the constitution.” This is obviously not the case, as the law being challenged did not discriminate against anyone (see point #4). Before Obergefell v. Hodges, homosexuals could get married just like anyone else. After Obergefell v. Hodges, homosexuals can get married just like anyone else. The only difference is that now the states are forced to claim, despite the protests of the great majority of the people in almost every state, that a man can “marry” a man and a woman can “marry” a woman—again, regardless of sexual orientation. This isn’t a matter of a disenfranchised people getting a right that everyone else already had; it’s a matter of everyone—gays, straights, whatever—getting a new “right” that previously, nobody had.

6) You claim that “The county is not a religious institution,” and you are correct. However, the SCOTUS ruling inflicted a religious belief upon the county, its residents, and its officials. If your argument is that one’s religious beliefs cannot trump the law, then it evaporates in a puff of logic because Justice Kennedy, et al’s religious beliefs are doing exactly that. That’s why Kim Davis is in jail: because Kennedy’s religious beliefs, despite being in direct opposition to the Constitution, are somehow more legal than Davis’, which are completely in line therewith.

7) You claim that “The court eliminated one more form of illegal discrimination,” which is also incorrect: what it actually did was enshrine one more form of illegal discrimination, which again, is why Kim Davis is in jail.

8) You claim that “the confused clerk should resign her position if she wants to discriminate and fulfill her oath of supporting the constitution.” Again, you are the one who is confused. Every law ever written is discriminatory. Laws against theft discriminate against thieves. Laws against speeding discriminate against speeders. Laws against tax evasion discriminate against tax evaders. Laws requiring dogs to be on a leash discriminate against dogs. The whole purpose of law is to discriminate, and if you believe otherwise, I think you might want to check the definition of discrimination. Conversely, Kim Davis is “supporting the Constitution.” That’s the whole point: the law she’s refusing to uphold is itself unconstitutional; the Constitution is what justifies her actions!

In conclusion, I reiterate what I have said before: Kim Davis is a hero. While she—like all of us—has obviously made some unfortunate choices in her own life, this does nothing to negate the validity of her actions in this case. The longer she stays in jail, the more outraged the people will become. It is my hope that she will be freed quickly, but I hope even more that her leadership will be a call to action for the tormented few of us who still believe in the United States of America and its Constitution.

Thursday, September 25, 2014


Yesterday I came across this picture and posted it to Facebook:

Shortly thereafter, my friend Tim posted the following comment:

“Can you explain this quote to me? How is it Bullying to fight for the right for gay people to marry. Why should they not be allowed to express their love and devotion to each in the same manner that you and I can?”

As is my custom, I’m taking a response that turned out to be rather long, and posting it to my blog for ease of reading. Tim, the rest of this is for you. :-)

First of all, I’d like to point out that that’s actually a great question. The problem is that it’s unfortunately based on a false premise. If I may, I’d like to deal with that part—the false premise—first.

Gay people have always had the right to marry. If an man and a woman walk into a courthouse and ask for a marriage license, their sexual orientation is never an issue. They can be straight, gay, bi, pan, or whatever other term they might choose to identify as—or any combination of the above. What matters is that marriage is defined as the union of a man and a woman, so the fact that they are a man and a woman is sufficient proof that they can logically be married.

Likewise, if two men walk into the same courthouse and ask for a marriage license, their sexual orientation is also a nonissue. Since marriage is the union of a man and a woman, the union of a man and a man does not meet that criterion. It doesn’t matter if both men are straight; they still can’t get married because two men cannot logically form a marriage. It has nothing to do with sexual preference; it has to do with the definition of a word.

The only way one can argue that the above scenarios create a situation of inequality for gays is if one argues that the definition of a straight person is someone who marries a person of the opposite sex, and the definition of a gay person is someone who wants to marry a person of the same sex. Unfortunately, this definition poses a significant problem for the marriage redefinition movement because it relegates homosexuality to being a choice. If whether or not someone be gay is wholly dependent upon the type of person he or she chooses to be with, then being gay does not constitute an immutable condition and thus cannot be subject to “equal rights” legislation. Conversely, if whether or not someone be gay is not dependent upon the type of person he or she chooses to be with, then the definition of marriage does not constitute an unequal condition because a gay person has just as much right to marry as a straight person does.

This is that major difference between the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s and the so-called Civil Rights movement of the 2010s. In the former, individuals were fighting for rights that others had but they did not. In the latter, individuals are fighting for new rights to be created for all. (For example, redefining marriage as including the union of a man and a man would give two straight men just as much right to enter into such a marriage as two gay men—which, as demonstrated, is exactly what we have now—unless, of course, being gay is a choice, in which case the entire argument disintegrates in a puff of logic.)

So, all that being said, let’s turn to your question: what is the quote referencing? In the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s, people turned to the law to protect them. Where the law failed, they worked to change the law; and when the law failed to be enforced, they worked to vote out those who failed to enforce it. In the so-called Civil Rights movement of the 2010s, people are searching for any random judge who is sympathetic to their cause, then having their case tried in his or her jurisdiction so they can override the will of the people and force a new definition upon all of us.

Let’s imagine the following scenario: I am pulled over for doing 100 mph in a 55-mph zone. When I go to court, I plead “not guilty” because I define the word “mile” as “10,000 feet”, so I was really only doing 52.8 mph. Because I explicitly planned to do this in a jurisdiction where the judge will sympathize with my cause, the judge rules in my favor and forms a legal precedent. I then demand that everyone else accepts my definition of “mile” as equally valid to the other, established definition. which I enforce by starting a massive media campaign that labels anyone who disagrees with my definition as a hateful bigot who is out of touch with the needs of mays (a word I invented, meaning “people who prefer a ‘mile’ to be ‘10,000 feet’). After all, we can’t help that we prefer that definition; we were born that way, so everyone else has to abandon their definition of “mile” and accept our competing definition as the valid one.

Various nations, states, and municipalities then vote on legislation defining the world “mile” as 5,280 feet. Where the legislation passes, mays in the area go out and vandalize churches and temples whose members tend to espouse this definition. Several churches are burned to the ground, and one individual is caught on surveillance video planting a bomb at a rather large temple. The police are never able to break the code of silence surrounding his identity, despite the thousands of counts of attempted murder; no one will identify him because, after all, he’s a hero!

If anyone in a position of particular authority is found to espouse the traditional definition of “mile”, mays tell the media how horrible this person is and, if they can’t sue the individual, keep his name in the news while boycotting his organization, until he is finally fired for being a bigot (because, after all, anyone who believes a mile is 5,280 feet obviously hates those who believe otherwise). Police officers who pull over mays for doing 130 in a 70 are vilified in the press and lose their jobs and pensions; those whose children are run over by mays doing 45 in a school zone are told that they can’t complain, because that would infringe upon the rights of others.

Mays who use the metric system take upon themselves the name of “Spartans”, and those who can’t decide which system to use become “bidistincials.” Anyone who wonders if he or she might be may is labeled “questioning” and encouraged to explore those feelings, since that will further swell the numbers of the group. The group then invites vematies—a group of people who feel that the word “vegetable” should be redefined to include tomatoes—to join, thus creating the SMBVQ movement. (Most mays think vematies are fairly subhuman, but some vematies are also may, and after all, including them further increases their numbers.) Anyone who feels that any of these opinions are even slightly wrong—or even that those questioning their distinciality should consider the actual definition of the word “mile”—are, again, made out to be bigots.

As things start to go the mays’ way, other groups emerge claiming that they, too, deserve equal rights. One such group believes that a mile should be 20,000 feet, not just 10,000, and that their definition should also be included. People who maintain the true definition of “mile” point to this as evidence that no good can come of all this redefinition on the fly, but the SMBVQ movement dismisses these other groups as extremists whose beliefs don’t matter, since they’ll never pose any danger to respectable people. (Yes, that’s what people said about mays, just a few decades ago, but that’s different. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.)

My point in this analogy is that everything I’ve mentioned corresponds directly to the fight to redefine marriage. It’s not about equal rights, though obviously many people have been led to believe this; it’s about forcing everyone to believe the way they do, regardless of what or how valid others’ differing positions might be. Furthermore, redefining words on the fly strikes at the heart of American contractual law, which explicitly states that this is illegal. If we can redefine “marriage” over the strenuous objections of We the People, why redefine “mile”? How about “life”? “murder”? “rape”? “love”? “assault”? We are literally in the early stages of an Orwellian, Newspeak-driven dystopia, and it all comes back to a small minority of individuals in a coordinated and calculated effort to suppress freedom of thought and dissenting opinion.

That is why this is a “bully movement”, Tim, and if the United States Supreme Court reverses its judgment in Baker v. Nelson (1972), I would be completely unsurprised if it literally tears our nation apart and takes us into a second Civil War. And frankly, the only thing I find scarier than that possibility is the alternative: that We the People are already so complacent as to roll over and let the entire nation implode around us, instead of just the portion so enamored with ignorance that it attempts to suppress others’ ability to think.

Thursday, June 5, 2014


Just a cross-post to my other blog:


Friday, January 3, 2014

Equal Rights, Part II

Yesterday morning, I posted a blog entry entitled Equal Rights, which dealt with Fair to All’s efforts to protect the rights of those who disagree with marriage redefinition. Strangely, no one chose to respond on this page, but I did get several responses in a thread on Mormons Building Bridges. I have dealt with each individually, but one was lengthy enough that I have chosen to add it as a separate blog entry, as well.

MBB member Gina Crivello stated:
“Jeff's blog post to show how inaccurate my and Erin’s comparison between segregation and basic LGBTQ rights. He asked for my thoughts.) - ‘Should bakers and photographers and florists also be forced to provide services to Westboro Baptist Church rallies? How about a KKK lynching?’
“You are comparing a group of people who need housing and employment protection as well as legal protection for their family (which marriage would provide) to groups of people who seek to harass and kill others. Our comparison is not ‘severely’ inappropriate, imo. Supporters of segregation had (in their mind) sound scriptural, Bible-based reasons to continue to discriminate, separate themselves, and to justify their right to not serve black people in white-only establishments and felt it was ‘God’s way.’”

Much like yesterday, the remainder of my comments will be addressed to her.

First of all, Gina, I’m not talking about “God’s way”; I’m talking about legality and logic. “God’s way” is certainly a valid consideration, but when there is significant debate as to what “God’s way” is, it would be extremely difficult to enter it into law. So, let’s deal with what I am talking about.

Despite your erroneous charge, I have never once argued that people should be able to deny housing to certain people. What I argue is that a business owner should be able to deny any specific service to everyone (as opposed to specific individuals or groups). It’s all well and good that gay people require housing, but if I’m going to be sued for not renting a property to a gay person, I would think the fact that I don’t own any properties to rent might be a relevant consideration.

So, let’s speak from what services I can provide. Personally, I’m a database developer. So let’s imagine a gay man comes to me and asks me to develop a database in Servoy. I respond that I’m very sorry, but I don’t do Servoy development. If he would like a database designed in FileMaker or SQL, I’d be happy to help him, but Servoy is outside my list of services provided. The man walks away, finds someone else to design his Servoy database, then proceeds to sue me for discrimination.

When the case arrives before the court, I argue that there was no personal discrimination involved, that it wouldn’t matter if he were gay, straight, or anything else; I don’t design Servoy databases and never have. The judge, however, sees that I have provided databases for many clients, so I must also provide a database for this client, and I must provide the specific kind of database the client requests. I am fined and sentenced to prison for violation of anti-discrimination laws.

Does this sound ridiculous? Of course! But it is no different than Jack Phillips being told that even though his business does not provide garriage cakes, the fact that he provides any type of cake requires him to provide all types of cake. It doesn’t matter that he wouldn’t provide that specific type of cake to a straight person; it doesn’t matter that he would provide other types of cake to a gay person. A gay person requested a cake and he said no, so he’s a criminal.

As far as I can see, Gina, there is definitely discrimination at work here, but the plaintiffs aren’t the victim. From what I can see, FairToAll is fighting to end discrimination; is discriminating against Jack Phillips somehow less wrong, just because he doesn’t happen to be gay?

As always, your comments are appreciated.

Thursday, January 2, 2014

Equal Rights

I am a member of a Facebook group called “Mormons Building Bridges,” the purpose of which is as follows:
“Mormons Building Bridges is dedicated to conveying love and acceptance to LGBTQI individuals. We support all our brothers and sisters—those who identify as LGBTQI and those who identify as same-sex attracted—and work to make them feel welcome in our homes and congregations. Mormons Building Bridges is not sponsored by nor do we represent The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or any political party or caucus.”

I wholly support this endeavor and am actively involved in the group. However, I am constantly surprised by how much many group members’ politics diverge from my own Moderate positions. For example, the most active members seem to trend morally Liberal and consequently support current redefinition efforts. To wit, a recent post linked to a web site called, which demands equality for those who disagree with marriage redefinition, calling it—as ultraliberals often do—an “anti-equality group.” My purpose today is to show that this allegation is not only erroneous, but exactly opposite the truth.

Drilling down a bit, I’d like to focus on the first comment on this thread, which deals with the section of Fair to All entitled “Real People, Real Harm.” This section gives examples of actual individuals who have been sued or charged with crimes, each for having the audacity to exercise his or her right of conscience. The comment, by a woman named Erin (whom I actually really like), states:
“Bakers & photographers & florists cannot refuse to serve homosexuals. This strikes me as exactly like the colored lunch counter phenomena of the Jim Crow era. I agree that it is painful, but I also believe that it is necessary. If you want to do business in America, you have to do it fairly.”

This blog post is to show how inaccurate that comparison is. I thus address the remainder of this post to her.

Erin, the problem I have with your argument, re: “real people,” is that none of the people on this site—and frankly, no one in history, of whom I am aware—has “refuse[d] to serve homosexuals.” For example, in several of the cases cited, the store owners specifically stated that they would be happy to serve gay people; they just refuse to support certain events. Should bakers and photographers and florists also be forced to provide services to Westboro Baptist Church rallies? How about a KKK lynching? If the services are being refused because of the event instead of the individual(s), there is no legal discrimination at play.

Because of this, the question becomes one of how we define “gay.” Obviously, there are two logical possibilities: either sexual orientation is hardwired into our person, or it is not. I assume most people in Mormons Building Bridges would argue that it is indeed hardwired, and while I don’t believe it’s that simple, I basically agree. However, let’s consider both possibilities and see how things turn out.

Scenario 1: Sexual Orientation Is a Choice.

Put differently, a person’s sexuality is based on his or her relationship: a gay man who enters into a relationship with a woman suddenly becomes straight; a straight woman who enters into a relationship with a woman suddenly becomes gay. I don’t think anyone really accepts this position, but it is logical and thus must be dealt with.

If we argue that a person’s sexuality is based on one’s actions, then Jack Phillips—the Colorado baker who is facing jail time for discrimination—is guilty as charged. He has openly admitted that he will bake a cake for an opposite-sex commitment ceremony (which, if sexual orientation be a choice, renders its participants straight), but he will not bake a cake for a same-sex commitment ceremony (which renders its participants gay).

The point is that if it‘s impossible for a gay person to be in a relationship with someone of the opposite sex, and it is also impossible for a straight person to to be in a relationship with someone of the same sex, then denying cakes to same-sex couples is discriminatory against gays. However, even though Mr. Phillips is clearly guilty, there is no crime to be prosecuted, because being gay is clearly a choice that one makes and thus not subject to nondiscrimination law.

So, if Scenario 1 be true, then Fair to All’s assertion is also true and Mr. Phillips’ rights must be protected.

Scenario 2: Sexual Orientation Is Not a Choice.

If sexual orientation is an immutable personal characteristic, something hardwired into one’s psyche, then a gay person who chooses to enter into a “traditional” (opposite-sex) relationship does not cease to be gay; and a straight person who chooses to enter into a same-sex relationship does not cease to be straight. Again, I suspect this is the position taken by most people in MBB.

If this be the case, then the validity of the lawsuit against Phillips is based entirely on whether he would offer services to straight people that are not available to gays. This could be shown in one of two ways:

a) We could establish that if a gay person asked him to bake a graduation cake, he would refuse; if a gay person asked him to bake a baptismal cake, he would refuse; etc..


b) We could establish that if a straight person asked him to bake a cake for a same-sex commitment ceremony, he would not refuse the request.

Barring either of the above criteria, Mr. Phillips is clearly not discriminating based on personal characteristics. If there is no service he would provide to a straight person that he would not provide to a gay person, there is no discrimination against persons and thus, no violation.

So, if Scenario 2 be true, then Fair to All’s assertion is also true and Mr. Phillips’ rights must be protected.

If anyone can come up with a third scenario, please post it in the comments. I’m more than happy to listen! Otherwise, I think I have sufficiently shown that Fair to All is anything but “anti-equality”; on the contrary, it is performing a great work for humanity, protecting otherwise helpless individuals from persons who use the word “equality” as code for “bigotry.”

As always, my 2¢.

Update: check out Part II!

Monday, July 22, 2013

Acquiring Old New Music

In 1991, Coca-Cola offered a series of eight New Music Samplers, each in a different genre (although there were two volumes of Pop), each one free with (IIRC) four proofs of purchase. I got five of them and actually wound up buying a single CD—and later, two others by the same group—based on a couple of songs I really liked.

Twenty-two years later, I’m several years into the process of upgrading all my cassettes and can’t bring myself to just completely ditch a single one. If I own a song, I want to continue to own it. To this end, I’ve now bought almost 20 CDs for $1 or less on used music sites.

I don’t think that’s quite what the record companies intended, but I guess it’s something!

Friday, March 29, 2013

Marriage, Garriage, and You

Earlier today, I responded to a question by a Facebook acquaintance. As others have thought my response to be of worth, I have decided to place it here as well. The acquaintance in question—who, for what it’s worth, is the one who began the conversation—stated that my arguments regarding marriage vs. garriage boil down to a question of semantics. He further stated that arguments regarding the results of redefining the word “marriage” amount to a slippery slope argument, an informal logical fallacy. In response to both of these assertions, my response—which has remained unchallenged for eight hours (or in Internet debate time, approximately 562 years)—is as follows. Hopefully it will help someone in need. Enjoy!

Daniel, you’re right that marriage vs. garriage is a question of semantics, and you’re right that it’s a slippery slope—which, while technically an informal fallacy (as you rightly pointed out), is also well precedented in reality. Whenever a law is made, it is wise to consider the consequences of that law. That’s not fallacious; that’s common sense.

The government has given its stamp of approval to marriage, just like it has given its stamp of approval (whether formally or informally) to infinite other things. The argument of the pro-redefinition crowd is that we need to change the definition of the word marriage. This sets an extremely dangerous precedent: that if anyone wants to do anything, that person simply needs to argue that the legal definition of some unrelated word needs to be changed. Instead of attempting to pass a new law allowing the desired act, the person simply argues that an old law already protects the act. You call it “slippery slope,” but the courts call it “legal precedent.” If we can simply redefine the word “marriage,” we have precedent to redefine any word. We have quite literally legalized anarchy!

Furthermore, the argument that this will not give some people a missing right is entirely fallacious, as all people are already equally allowed to marry. Redefinition does not ensure a missing right for some but instead creates an entirely new one for all. Is anyone claiming that if some people are given the ability to legally garry, that all people will not receive this same ability? Those who self-identify as “gay” may already get married, and have always been able to do so. The right to garry, however, is a completely separate issue and must be kept as such. The very state of our entire legal system depends on it.

Finally, pro-marriage laws have been compared to anti-miscegenation laws, but this comparison is certainly erroneous. The fact that anti-miscegenation laws existed in the first place is proof that interracial unions are (and were) marriages, else there would have been nothing to legislate against. Conversely, the Supreme Court has already determined that same-sex unions are not marriages, if only because no reasonable person would ever consider them as such (Baker v. Nelson, 1972). If people want garriage, the correct course of action is to pass pro-garriage laws, not anti-marriage laws.