Boz, there's certainly a parallel to be drawn....

Those who now argue that same-sex couples should be included, as a matter of civil right, within the legal definition of marriage are appealing to the constitutional principles of equal protection and equal treatment. But this is entirely inappropriate for making the case for same-sex "marriage." To argue that the Constitution guarantees equal treatment to all citizens, both men and women, does not say anything about what constitutes marriage, or a family, or a business enterprise, or a university, or a friendship. An appeal for equal treatment would certainly not lead a court to require that a small business enterprise be called a marriage just because two business partners prefer to think of their business that way. Nor would equal treatment of citizens before the law require a court to conclude that those of us who pray before the start of auto races should be allowed to redefine our auto clubs as churches.

The simple fact is that the civil right of equal treatment cannot constitute social reality by declaration. Civil rights protections function simply to assure every citizen equal treatment under the law depending on what the material dispute in law is all about. Law that is just must begin by properly recognizing and distinguishing identities and differences in reality in order to be able to give each its legal due.

Not all would agree its a "civil right" to be violated.

GREENVILLE, N.C. — Passage of a constitutional amendment defining marriage as solely between a man and a woman makes North Carolina "look like Mississippi," Gov. Beverly Perdue said Friday.

Now heres a dumb statement!



Mississippi?
Why not Alaska?
Or Colorado?
Or Missouri?
Or Arizona?
Or......

the bassakwards minds of the uneducated