They seemed to argue that all people must be able to call themselves married. No one can be denied the title of being “married” solely based of who they love. The anti-Prop 8 lawyers say that if some people are attracted only to sexual relationships with fivesomes or threesomes, they must all be able to call themselves married. Some people haven’t yet found anyone they love, or some even just love themselves. The anti-Prop8 claim seems to require a crazy leap of logic that says it is unconstitutional to prevent any consenting group of adults to marry. Olsen said that “marriage is an individual right”. In my view, an individual should not be able to marry himself. This would seem to be a radical new reading of the 14th amendment, especially since that amendment doesn’t seem to address “marriage” at all ! They say we should suspend democracy because “any group but a man and a woman would be disadvantaged and would be treated as a suspect class”. Their argument is not making any sense to me. Does everyone need to be able to call themselves married?

What again has marriage meant?

Will they next require that everyone be able to call themselves “legally tall”?
Will they next require that everyone be able to call themselves “legally handicapped”. Do the rules of the state have to change so that everyone can get a handicapped sticker? What would it hurt to offer everyone the right to park in the closest parking spots? Indeed it would dilute the traditional meaning of handicapped !

If accepted their argument requires that first cousins must now be allowed to marry each other. They seem to imply that “Forbidding marriage between 1st cousins cannot withstand rational basis review”. Denying the right to marry would deny that group of equal protection under the law. Is that unconstitutional? It seemed they haven’t thought thru their random arguments.

By definition, marriage has been between a husband and a wife. A husband is defined as the male individual of the married couple, and the wife is defined as the female individual of the married couple. The final words of the traditional ceremony are “I pronounce you husband and wife” (not “I pronounce you husband and husband and husband”, or “I pronounce you wife and wife” — these are not currently accepted as marriage whether a judge says so or not). Let’s have the people decide. If the majority of people elect to change the definition of marriage that is ok, but a group of 3 people should not assume total control of in democracy (and certainly not unelected court officials. Hijacking the right to vote itself would seem to be unconstitutional in a democracy.

The anti-Prop8 group espouses a radically new interpretation of the 14th amendment. I believe they would also conclude that nature is discriminatory since it forbids man and man from procreating together. Try as they might, nature does not allow them to have offspring of their own genes. Perhaps nature is violating the 14th amendment? Must we repeal the natural laws? They appear to be frustrated that they cannot –claiming that as Vaughn did that such laws of nature must actually “due to a fear of same sex couples”. Nature is “intolerant and irrational because it treats these groups differently”. The anti-Prop8 lawyer’s web is radical indeed!