[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Hey Hey kids, it's the devil's advocate.

I don't see how gay marriage is onconstitutional based on these tidbits.

It isn't descriminitory based on any of the above things such as race, sex, religion etc. If a gay man wants to marry a woman he can.

Marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman so saying it is descrimintory to not allow two men to do it is like saying that not allowing 16 year olds to vote is unconstitutional. Some things require certain criteria be met.

Ie. to drink you must be 18.
To drive a car you must be 16 and have passed a driver's test
To vote you must be 18 and a citizen.
To get married, there must be a man and a woman.
I can't see the supreme court ever striking down the defintion of marriage if the provinces set it that way.

If something like that is challengable based on it being descriminatory, then isn't the citizenship criteria for voting subject to challenge? I mean we say you can't vote because you aren't a citizen of out country (ie, you're not from here) sounds to me like that is a clear case of descrimination based on country of origin, but even if it were challenged, it wouldn't ever be ruled unconstitutional because the privalege it provides is based on that chriteria.

ie. you can't vote without citizenship and being 18, you can't be 18 and a citizen and not be allowed to vote.

kinda like: you can't be get married without a consenting man/woman pair, and you can't be denied to be married if you are a consenting man/woman pair of age.