Right back at ya, TRG.
No...not so much.
By the way, the SCOTUS agrees with me, not you. I understand the origins of the equal protection clause, but it's scope isn't limited to slavery. That's been settled for a century.
The equal protection clause was written specifically for slavery and about slavery. The only thing that has been "settled" is the courts continued and willful misinterpretation of that particular Constitutional Amendment in order to enact Liberal social engineering.
I know that's probably a painful and harsh reality for you to have to come to grips with...but it's the truth.
Since you purposely ignored this before...let me post it for you again.
The 14th Amendment was intended to prevent states from discriminating against newly freed slaves. At that time blacks and women didn't even have the right to vote, yet no court ever thought it could use the "equal protection" clause to change state voting laws. So why do some district courts think they can use it now to change state marriage laws? Are we to believe that "equal protection" does not guarantee a woman's right to vote but does guarantee a woman's right to marry another woman?
Since the people "evolved" on voting rights, they convinced supermajorities in Congress and of the state legislatures voted to add the 15th and 19th Amendments in 1870 and 1920 respectively. The courts knew they shouldn't act as legislatures to grant rights not addressed by the Constitution. Neither should this Supreme Court.
<snip>
Every person has the same equal right to marry someone of the opposite sex. That law treats all people equally, but not every behavior they may desire equally. If people with homosexual desires do not have equal rights, then people with desires to marry their relatives or more than one person don't have equal rights. The "born that way" justification doesn't work either because that same justification could make any desired arrangement "marriage," which means the logic behind it is absurd. The Court needs to acknowledge the fact that natural marriage, same sex-marriage, incestuous marriage, and polygamous marriage are all different behaviors with different outcomes, so the law rightfully treats those behaviors differently while giving every citizen the equal right to participate in marriage whatever its legal definition is.
The U.S. Constitution says nothing about marriage. While the Supreme Court did overturn Virginia's ban on inter-racial marriage, it did so because Virginia discriminated on the basis of race, which is precisely what the 14th Amendment was intended to prevent. There is no rational reason to discriminate on the basis of race because race is irrelevant to marriage. However, gender is essential to it. Even the 2013 Windsor decision, which partially struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act, recognized that marriage is a state, not a federal issue. Since there is no 14th Amendment issue here, the Court must leave marriage to the states.
http://www.onenewsnow.com/perspectives/Miscellaneous/2015/03/19/why-the-14th-amendment-cant-possibly-require-same-sex-marriageIf you don't like homosexuality, don't practice it. If you want to call two folks in a loving, monogamous relationship perverts, then that's your right under the First Amendment. But you don't have the right to impose your morality on others, and neither does the state by declining to extend to my gay friends, relatives and neighbors the equal protection of the law.
I didn't call them perverts. Stop putting words in my mouth. Your problem with this issue is you're too close to the subject.
And once again I will ask you...since you've ignored the question a couple times...
please cite to me what Constitutional right gays are being denied?Marriage is not a right. You are wanting to bastardize something that has nothing to do with gay "rights" and give them a protection that I'm not afforded.
I want MY constitutional "right" to marry.
Where do I go to get redress?
