lukster,
So again you're saying that my wife and I shouldn't be married because we can't produce future tax payers.
The first two times I figured you didn't really mean that, but now it's clear that you DO mean that.
When you can show that throughout history male/female couples were held in slavery and that their position in society is still affected by the fallout from that era, then I'll buy your argument that tax shelters for male/female partners is the same as affirmative action. Until then, it's a stupid argument.
When the laws governing marriage make having natural offspring a requirement to get a marriage certificate, I'll buy your argument about having children being the reason why male/female marriages are not unconstitutional. Until then, not only is it a stupid argument, it's also a direct assault against every childless married couple in history, because the benefits of being married are not limited to simple tax breaks. The whole thing, from right of survivorship (which you conveniently ignore while focusing on tax benefits only for couples who can naturally conceive a child) to inheritance laws are based on a legal definition of marriage that discriminates on the basis of sex alone.
You're repeating the same old argument that just because we've discriminated in the past, it's ok to keep doing it. And because we want to keep discriminating against certain people, we somehow need a constitutional amendment outlining the one (it'll be the last one, honest!) and only exception to the equal protections clause in the existing constitution.
So you're in favor of a constitutional amendment that legalizes sexual discrimination. What will be your stance when someone else proposes a constitutional amendment discriminating against you?
