Regarding the “one more fact” point, I am curious on what grounds the argument (and the supporting populace) stands when it claims that the recognition of solely heterosexual unions is morally offensive?

Regarding the government protecting the rights of minorities, I agree with your statement and the supporting link you sent and don’t believe any of this negates the statements in my post. In the context of this discussion, however, I assume your definition of “minority” includes groups who claim minority status on the basis of their sexuality. The link you sent to support your statement seems to define minorities based on characteristics of their humanity that have at some point either historically or in the present have been the basis by which they have been denied basic human rights. I believe all people, regardless of sexuality, are already afforded protected status under the law on the basis if their humanity and guaranteed these basic human rights: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

I couldn’t find anything in the supporting link that came right out and designated a minority class based on sexuality. “Social practices” was the closest I could get, but it’s debatable as to whether this refers to or includes sexuality.

If you are indeed claiming non-heterosexuals should be designated as a minority on basis of their sexuality, can you provide evidence where the government has sanctioned or tolerated denial of life to a person on the basis of their sexuality (Life)? Evidence where the government has imposed oppressive restrictions on a person’s way of life, behavior or political views on the basis of their sexuality (Liberty)? Evidence that it has ever been against federal law to live a non-heterosexual lifestyle (Pursuit of Happiness)?

That said, even if there is evidence for the above (which there probably is), I don’t believe legislation that recognizes marriage as the union between one man and one woman denies non-heterosexuals any of their basic human rights. I believe my point still stands.

I don’t think I need to address the link to the Equal Protection Clause as it pretty clearly states that the courts (thus far) appear to agree with me that “suspect class” need not be extended to non-heterosexuals.

In regard to your sneer about my belief, I think I’ve stated in more than one way here that I am not in favor of any legislation that restricts the basic human rights of anyone based on their sexuality. I would encourage you to do some serious study on the context in which our nation was founded, the beliefs of those who crafted the documents central to its foundations, and the basis by which the practice and interpretation of law was established in this country.

but maybe everyone should only be protected if they have the same belief as you…

WOW… I think we should add in at least one more fact…

1. Percentage of populace that finds the recognition and protection of only heterosexual union offensive >1%

And I am sorry but I do believe our government is not here to protect the rights of the majority but to protect the rights of the minorities…