People still try to deny the obvious

In California, the homophobic crowd is digging in its heels, trying to deny the right of marriage to gays and lesbians. No matter how hard they try to pretend that this "hurts" them in some fashion (and to manufacture ways in which they are so grievously harmed that they have to fight it tooth and nail), isn't it obvious that their intent is to punish others, to deny others something that they already have?

Here's a lawyer for one of the anti-gay-marriage groups:

"If the court does its job, it will look solely at the law," said Andrew Pugno, chief counsel for the Prop. 22 Legal Defense Fund, which was established to protect the 2000 ballot measure that reinforced the opposite-sex-only marriage law.

"Our system would fall apart if we changed the law every time a small minority felt personal anguish about what the law does and does not say," Pugno said. "I have personal anguish that I pay too much taxes, but no one feels sorry for me."

So paying taxes is "discrimination", eh? No one feels sorry for Mr. Pugno, but that's because he's an azo.

But one does have to wonder about this Chicken-Little angst here: What "system" would "fall apart"? And how? These types never really say ... because they can't. That was never the point (see my first paragraph).

...

In oral argument, the California Deputy AG says that everyone's "equal":

The justices honed in on that case during their questioning of Krueger, asking whether the state believes "separate is equal here" and whether animus against gays and lesbians is intrinsic in the state law.

"What distinguishes this is that (for interracial couples) there was marriage and there was nothing," Krueger said. "Racial discrimination had been put on marriage for no reason other white supremacy."

He added that plaintiffs in the same-sex case "talk about domestic partnership as if it's schoolhouse segregation. ... Yes, same-sex couples aren't allowed to marry under our laws, but that is not the same type of exclusion. ... Here there is equality."

Yes, "equality". You can have a "civil union" ... and enter through that other door ... but not "marriage" (which, for better or worse, has actual legal implications WRT the way the federal gummint or other states will treat you).

I think that Krueger needs to read up on what the U.S. Supreme Court said in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) on the matter of "separate but equal":

We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of "separate but equal" has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Not to mention, in this case, the separate "facilities" are not "equal" due to the legal differentiation of the status of "marriage" and "civil partnership" by other entities than the gummint of California.