via Good as You
"In an attempt to explain why a Maryland judge was wrong to rule the state's one man/one woman marriage law unconstitutional, Focus on the Family's CitizenLink quotes a Baltimore attorney by the name of Matt Paavola (pic.) as saying:
The law doesn't violate equal-rights protections because it burdens both genders equally, he said.
"A man can't marry a man," said Paavola, "and a woman can't marry a woman."
So basically, following Mr. Paavola's argument (which is basically the same as the state's), equal-rights protections begin and end at gender. He's saying that since NO man or woman can marry each other, then everyone is discriminated against equally. Which might be kind of sort of logical if everyone in the world were born in the mold of a white heterosexual man or woman. But they are not. Equal rights protections, by their very nature, are designed to protect the rights of EVERYONE equally!To see the flaws in Mr. Paavola's argument, one only needs to harken back to the fight for interracial marriage. What if it had been determined that marriages between folks of different races should have been banned because "A man can't marry someone of another race and a woman can't marry someone of another race?" It would still be the folks who WANT to marry someone of another race that are being discriminated against! You can't negate that something is discrimination by pointing out one particular...