Proposition 8 declared unconstitutional

[Rhyfelwyr]

No, it isn't. They can marry whoever they want, just like everyone else. They are being treated the same as the rest by the law - ergo, no discrimination. Choosing not to get married, even if it is because of your nature, doesn't mean that you're discriminated against when others choose to do it.

As I said, that argument is the same as "homosexual men are treated the same as other men by law, since they can still marry women - ergo, no discrimination. Choosing not to get married, even if it is because of your nature, doesn't mean that you're discriminated against when others choose to do it."

Removing one level of discrimination within the insitution of marriage doesn't end the discrimination for those who will, for whatever reason, always be without it. Telling an asexual they can marry is meaningless to them. They are going to be denied all the nice tax-breaks etc unless they enter into a relationship which they, by nature, would find unnatural for themselves.

Again, that is not the same thing. Heterosexuals could marry the person they love. Homosexuals could not. The law clearly made a distinction between homosexuality and heterosexuality and treated them differently. That is discrimination. By giving everyone the right to marry whoever they want, with the same benefits, name and all, regardless of whether you're homosexual, heterosexual, asexual, bisexual or Swedish, you are not making a distinction between sexual preferences. Thus, you are not discriminating.

I ask you: since I have chosen not to get married because of my nature, am I being discriminated against right now?

First off, for the bolded bit, I agree. It is discrimination to allow only heterosexual, and not homosexual marriage.

While that is discrimination within the institution of marriage, asexuals will be victims of discrimination because of the fact that they are excluded from marriage altogether.

As to whether you are being discriminated against... well surely you are? Even if not getting married is for you a conscious preference, why should another person who is in other respects the same as you, go on to get a big tax-break and all the other benefits from the government, purely because they are going to live with someone else? It's discrimination based on a life-style choice.

All the tax-breaks etc exist purely to promote social engineering, of the conservative kind, with keeping the traditional nuclear family etc. Maybe in the past marriage was taken for granted as a good thing, but now society has moved past that, is there really any justification for not scrapping the government's role in marriage?

"54. The availability of domestic partnership does not provide gays
and lesbians with a status equivalent to marriage because the
cultural meaning of marriage and its associated benefits are
intentionally withheld from same-sex couples in domestic
partnerships." pg 84

Why on earth is the government concerning itself with the cultural meaning of things?

The government should grant legal equality, not try to engineer cultural equality.

And the fact that it is doing the latter is what is annoying the conservatives.