Reply #13: It would be fundamentally unAmerican and anti-Constitutional, in spirit. [View All]

Even if one could argue that it is not homophobic, it is certainly discriminatory, and it violates the Constitutional prohibition of creating levels of citizenship, by only allowing certain couples to enjoy full rights of citizenship.

It's also basical gender discrimination, telling someone they can't marry another person because of their gender. I really don't care about the whole "choice vs nature" argument, and don't see it as relevant. If a straight man wants to marry a straight man, I don't care--to say that they can't have the same relationship as a man who wants to marry a woman makes no sense to me, in the context of America and the values upon which we were founded. This is America, and the pursuit of happiness is an inalienable right that government can't infringe upon, and telling someone they have to live as a second-class citizen because their pursuit of happiness involves creating a family with someone of the same gender instead of someone of the opposite gender infringes on that right. It's just not America.

So I don't care what label or nuance of a concept is applied to such an amendment, it is just self-evidently wrong.