You know what would be even less touchy-feely than dissing your mom? Passing laws to prevent her from marrying the person she loves. So, comparatively, we are the touchy-feely ones here.
suck it you hateful bigoted degenerate whore-mothered goat-fucking trash(gay marriage ban overturned
You think I learnt goat-fucking on my own?? What’s a mum for?
Well…
Would it though? I guess it would depend on how the law was written. Blondness is not an immutable characteristic, but it is very linked to national origin, which receives strict scrutiny. I think you could make an argument depending on the law, to use strict scrutiny on a law which discriminated on the basis of blondness.
And, as I mentioned in the other thread, you are right on intermediate scrutiny.
On that, as usual, here’s some love for s.15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Egan v. Canada (“sexual orientation is […] a deeply personal characteristic that is either unchangeable or changeable only at unacceptable personal costs, and so falls within the ambit of s. 15 protection as being analogous to the enumerated grounds”).
And what pure irony to refer to imposing will. Seems to me, since nobody made SSM mandatory, that the people imposing their will are the ones trying to prevent consenting adults from getting married, not the ones trying to allow it.
What are the Prop 8 supporters being imposed upon to do? They don’t have to marry a same-sex partner. They don’t have to attend a same-sex marriage. They don’t have to allow same-sex marriage in their churches. They don’t even have to like same-sex marriages.
Maybe they will be forced to felch a dead goat.
And how about those activist judges on the '54 Supreme Court? Who the hell were *they *to tell *us *we couldn’t segregate our schools?!
Why is it more like gender than race? Put differently, what is the rationale behind subjecting race to strict scrutiny and gender to intermediate scrutiny, and why should the latter apply to sexual orientation? Does the rationale have something to do with the fact that sometimes it’s approppriate to discriminate between genders/sexes (no dudes in the ladies’ room; there’s a presumption that young children belong with their moms) whereas it’s hard to think of a reason it would be appropriate to discriminate on race/ethnicity/nationality (happened once, right?)? If so, when is it appropriate to discrimnate based on sexual orientation?
Look, what you all need to understand about this whole thing is . . .
Wait. 
There’s something outside my window . . .
It seems to be a velociraptor. With a guy riding on its back. Wearing a Waffen SS uniform.
Excuse me, I’ll get back to you.
Seriously? Everybody knows that only Mexicans ride raptors.
Dude, I totally want to be Mexican now.
I thought it was Jamaicans with big teeth that rode raptors.
And who said Mexicans couldn’t be Nazis? Oppressor!
Ayuda! Ayuda! Estoy siendo oprimidos!
Mi aerodeslizador esta lleno de gringos.
Nope. Mexicans. (Cite.)
Pretty sure that would be the Nazis. They were pretty up on racial purity, and most Mexicans have a mixed heritage of people native to the region and the Spanish who colonized.
How about a translation for those of us who don’t speak German?
Aid! Aid! I am being pressed!
¡Venga ver la violencia inherente en el sistema!
German, Spanish, tomayto, tomahto. waves hand dismissively
Come on, man. Just because there’s a clearly correct side of the argument doesn’t mean you can just throw out any old argument or feign ignorance about the other side. Clearly, it’s stuff like tax breaks and whatnot. Is it an imposition? Yes. Is it new? Yes. Bam. Thought of one. Wasn’t even that hard.
The marriage club just got a little less exclusive. You don’t have to be against the expansion to see why that might tick a few people off.
It’s not like slavery was compulsory.