Now the Second Amendment applies to the states and places an absolute restriction on the ability to regulate. As explained in Heller, the state can regulate, but cannot deny the right of self-defense which is the purpose of the RKBA. Hence, a ban on handguns is unconstitutional - but not a regime of registration and insurance, except to the extent such regime is so onerous as to effectively deny the fundamental right.
And that's why marriage equality is the law of the land. The Constitutional right at stake is the equal protection of the law. And a state that chooses to ban the right of gays to marry under the civil law, while preserving that status for opposite sex couples, has denied homosexuals the law's equal protection.
This is so utterly wrong on multiple accounts. First, you argue that the Second Amendment places an absolute restriction on States, yet argue that States can regulate any way they see fit. Nothing absolute about that.
Next, you claim that this clear contradiction is why marriage equality is the law of the land. Your claim is utterly preposterous.
Then you offer up the strawman of States banning the right of gays to marry. Not a single State does this. Not a single one. This has been pointed out to you again and again and again, yet here you are once more offering a false account of the debate.
As for your equal protection argument, let's follow through on it. Per your argument, sales tax in California is unconstitutional because there is no sales tax in Oregon. Motorcycle helmet laws in Oregon are unconstitutional because there is no helmet law in South Carolina. And South Carolina state income tax laws are unconstitutional because there is no state income tax in Tennessee.
See the inane idiocy of your equal protection schtick? Because in the end, you do not offer equal protection. Instead, you offer tyranny based solely upon your viewpoint - a tyranny that denies the people of California from establishing their own laws according to the will of the people of California - but one that only applies when the people of California choose to do something contrary to your wishes.
That violation of the federal Constitution is why Roy Moore was removed from office for refusing to permit gays to marry in Alabama.
Roy Moore upheld Alabama law. There was no Constitutional violation. There was no violation of federal law. And it is quite telling that even now, you are still unable to show otherwise. In fact, you have shown nothing.
Alabama's constitution may define marriage as between a man and a woman, but that constitution violates the Federal Constitution's guarantee of equal protection.
It does no such thing. Perhaps you should actually try reading Amendment XIV for yourself instead of continuing to pretend the Constitution says things it does not say.
Seriously, you have been putting up this argument for months now, yet not once have you cited what the Constitution actually says.
So there's no contradiction in my positions - Pennsylvania's gun laws are consistent with the Federal Constitution, but Alabama's prohibition on same sex civil marriage is not.
There are plenty of contradictions in your positions. The whole equal protection sham being the biggest one of all. Before Obergfell, we already has equal protection. But after Obergfell, sexual preference has been added to the equation. It did not exist before, but now it does. Except only one sexual preference is added while others are excluded. Same sex marriage is allowed, but polygamy is not. So much for equal protection, eh?
So all we are left with is your own personal world view with not a shred of legal or Constitutional basis to back it up. Nothing but the tyranny you advocate for imposing your world view on others at the point of a gun while covering it with the lie that it is somehow 'constitutional'.
