Of course it doesn't. A restriction of civil marriage to opposite sex couples effectively prohibits homosexuals from marrying.
Nope. There is nothing in that statute that prohibits homosexuals from marrying. You simply made that up.
Note the word "effectively."
Noted. It allows you to deviate from the actual facts and make claims of discrimination where none exist. It is no different than claiming equal protection violation when the food stamp program is ended because it discriminates against people too lazy to work. But the bottom line here (which you well know) is that there is no reference to sexual preference in the Texas Constitution. The State will not sanction a marriage between two people of the same gender regardless of what their sexual preference is. Likewise, the State will not sanction a marriage between more than two people, again regardless of sexual preference. It is clear, concise, and it applies equally to everyone.
Your bullspit argument is that gays are perfectly free to marry - so long as they marry a spouse of the opposite sex. But homosexuals aren't attracted to the opposite sex.
Just as polygamists aren't attracted to exclusivity with one spouse. Nor are child molesters attracted to anyone over the age of 12.
Let's say Texas limited civil marriage to same sex couples. Would you be fine with that
Yes, I would be fine with that. The people of Texas should be allowed to empower their State Government to sanction whatever marriage definition they want. It is their business. Not yours and not mine. See, unlike you, I do not exhibit the fascist tendency to force Texas to comply with your beliefs in direct defiance to the Constitution of the United States.
and go out and marry a guy?
No. I would marry my wife in a covenant with G-d, with zero demand on my State to sanction it. For the umpteenth time, I place trust in my fellow society members to shape society as we see fit, and am willing to live under whatever rules they decide. And even more importantly, I acknowledge your right as a member of your Commonwealth to do the same. Never would I seek to impose my will on Pennsylvania and demand that their laws conform to my dictates. If you want same-gender marriage, polygamy, pet marriage, etc. in Pennsylvania, then more power to you. It is your right under Amendment X. Because you will never hear me toss out the word "Federal Constitution" (without actually citing something in it) as an excuse for imposing tyranny upon your state.
r would you then finally recognize the idiocy of your "legal" argument?
My "legal" argument is backed by the Bill of Rights (see Amendment X) and the Texas Constitution (see Article 1). What is yours backed by? Please be specific.