Daniel J. Stern wrote:

> On Thu, 11 Nov 2004, vince garcia wrote:
>
>
>>>The question is, why does anyone in this country have the right to
>>>"disagree" with, and then legislate against, someone's lifestyle when it
>>>doesn't damage their property or personal liberties?
>
>
>>It's called DEMOCRACY.
>
>
> No, it's actually called the tyranny of the majority. But why quibble over
> nomenclature?
>
>
>>I've got a good friend who's irritated that laws have been passed that
>>give people the right to forbid his going into their places of business
>>because he likes to walk around barefoot. He feels he's being
>>discriminated aginst, and you know what? He is!
>
>
> Do you know the difference between "discrimination" and "invidious
> discrimination"? I suspect you do not, or you'd realize why a comparison
> to "No shoes, no entry" laws and gay-marriage bans is fatuous at best.
>
>
>>Allow Gay marriage, and polygamy must also be allowed.
>
>
> Perhaps, perhaps not. ...So?

How about marrying your dog? Then your dog could get much better health
benefits, Medicare, etc.



>>Discrimination happens every day, from restricting 10 year-olds from
>>driving, to preventing private citizens from owning Nukes.
>
>
> See above, and learn what "invidious" means.
>
>
>>I face that discrimination every day as a government employee who by law
>>is prevented from working on political campaigns, as one example.
>
>
> This also is not invidious.


Neither is restricting legal marriage to a man and a woman.


Matt