That's purely conjecture, regarding whether either would have happened w/o government intervention. I suspect the Industrial Revolution would have lessened the importance of slavery (and the resulting economic costs of maintaining such a system.) As for women, giving them the right to vote hardly represents any special protection. In fact, they're not protected constitutionally any more than men are. (That is to say, gender is not a protected class.)
Lessened the importance of slavery... yes, I agree. Lessened racism... not so much. That's my point - not that women were given special protection, just that they were given rights that the majority already had. Women are constitutionally protected JUST as much as men are & that's the way it should be. I'm in no way shape or form advocating minorities (whether it's sex, race, sexual preference whatever) getting special treatment, just that they should get the same treatment & rights that we enjoy.
Absolutely. And nowhere does it say "right to marry." That's a statutory provision, not a Constitutional mandate. So if two gays can't enter into a binding marriage contract under the laws of any given state, there remains no deprivation of rights.
as i have said before, the proper thing for the government to do is to not manage straight marriages either. marriage should be treated like baptism in the eyes of the government.
OXYMORONS: Jumbo Shrimp Honest Politicians Pretty Ugly Gay Parents* If the d***dont fit you must (a)quit.
That won't work either. Too many legal issues involving legally married people. Just imagine the chaos of dividing up a spouse's estate. Or who gets to make the medical decision on behalf of a spouse, like the Schaivo case. Or child custody issues, etc. Many people view marriage as nothing more than some ritual, but it's much more than that with respect to the law. Here's a list of Marriage Rights and Benefits
Do you take this man to be your wife? For better or worse? For richer or poorer? For pitching or catching? :shock:
