A puppy keeps peeing on my leg. Fine, you answered my question, so I'll answer yours. You do know, don't you, that I wasn't "lying" about equal protection but merely stating the basis upon which the SCOTUS (in Obergefell ) ruled?
The Obergefell court failed utterly in citing where equal protection had been denied or violated by Michigan, Tennessee, Ohio, and Kentucky marriage laws. Which is why I asked you. Furthermore, your claim of 'equal protection' was in reference to the Constitution itself - not Obergefell. Care to try again?
Okay, here's the basic deal. Bob and Joe get married in Maryland, where same sex marriage is legal. They later move to Ohio, where their marriage isn't recognized. Meanwhile, I get married in Maryland too, and later move to Ohio. Ohio recognizes my marriage.
Maryland recognizes my right to purchase beer on Sunday while Alabama does not. By your reasoning, Alabama's beer law is unconstitutional.
Likewise by your reasoning, let's say Utah decides to legalize polygamy. Then if I marry twins in Utah that then move to Ohio, according to you, Ohio's prohibition against polygamy then becomes unconstitutional.
Ohio, like most states, imposes an inheritance tax, but waives the tax if one gives their wealth to their spouse. Bob and I both die, and leave our estates to our spouses. But Joe, Bob's spouse, is stuck paying an inheritance tax while my spouse pays nothing.
Whoa, wait just a minute here. You make allowance for states having different inheritance laws while at the same time declaring it unconstitutional for them to have different marriage laws.
See, Ohio can't have it both ways.
Yet you have no problem doing so yourself.
It can apply its inheritance tax waiver with respect to all spouses, if it wants as a matter of public policy to provide a break for married couples and their families. Or it can repeal its inheritance tax waiver and force all spouses to pay the tax.
Again, this is based upon Ohio law. Either both laws are allowed or neither is allowed. You don't get to pick and choose, declaring one invalid based solely upon the validity of the other.
But what it can't do is treat Bob's spouse differently than it treats mine.
Bob's 'spouse' isn't a spouse under Ohio law. If Bob wants to live under Maryland law, then he should stay in Maryland. Because there is zero Constitutional basis for imposing Maryland law on any other state. None. Zip. Nada.
That's an arbitrary denial of the Constitution's guarantee of the law's equal protection. That's unConstitutional.
Funny how the reverse isn't true. I mean by your reasoning, isn't it the state of Maryland that is in error here by not enforcing Ohio law? Come to think of it, Massachusetts' bans on firearms is unconstitutional because South Carolina allows them. And Illinois' allowance of third-trimester abortions is unconstitutional because Mississippi bans them. This is your definition of 'Equal protection', right?
In your argument, you cited inheritance laws not being equally applied. But nowhere did you indicate where equal protection was being denied in the marriage law itself.