Red Herring

Myk your argument concerning the flaws in my position suffer from an informal fallacy, the straw man argument. You point out two “supposed” flaws,

One-Certain rights belong to certain groups of people
“Heterosexual couples get to have marriage for the sake of the kids they are raising”
“there is some justification for distinguishing between straights and gays when it comes to marriage other than we hate you”

Two-Courts’ role in Civil Rights

Unfortunately, we are now arguing about your definition of marriage, “Heterosexual couples get to have marriage for the sake of the kids they are raising”. I can’t argue with you about your beliefs on marriage, however this has nothing to do with the position that gays are discriminated against solely on their sexual orientation. Marriage right pertains to the state recognizing two peoples’ social contract and has nothing to do with raising kids. Your definition of marriage is not an argument against my position, that the state refuses recognition of two consenting adults because of their sexual orientation. You have not yet illustrated the “justification for distinguishing between straights and gays when it comes to marriage other than we hate you”.

Your second point concerning courts’ role in civil rights again has no significance to the position that gays are being discriminated. Yes, we can argue that functionality of the government branches and the role they play in making sure rights are protected and provided equally. Courts’ role argument is separate from discriminatory States denial of same-sex marriage rights.

Since you have not yet illustrated the “justification for distinguishing between straights and gays when it comes to marriage other than we hate you” my position still stands that the lack of gay marriage is fundamental wrong in our country and without justification. Therefore, returning to our other argument courts’ role- it is the duty of our government to correct with all speed something unequivocally wrong. A single man preventing a mob from beating up a minority is more justified in his actions than is the mob. Thus the Californian Court was more justified and within their power (determining constitutionality on same-sex ban) to allow gay marriage than was the majority voting for prop 8. Just because more people believe doesn’t make it right or Argumentum ad populum