There's no such thing as a pretty good aligator wrestler.
As I said earlier, this is a FAR FAR more compelling argument.
Clearly race is not nor could it be argued to be a matter of choice as there are genetic markers that make it so. There are good and compelling opinions that neither is homosexuality, but as of yet, those are arguments and not not proof.
Furthermore the issue of race itself is not silent in the Constitution. The 15th Amendment DID address this issue of race (but NOT sexual preference), and there it said that voting rights should NOT be denied, and it is NOT a leap of logic or policy to consider voting on the same legal plane as marriage. Also laws denying interracial marriage with notably regional. Other states either allowed it or ignored laws against it. Both of these important facts are missing in the issue at hand.
But I will repeat, of all the arguments for gay marriage, this is the only one that carries any constitutional validity to me, but NOT enough to override and ignore the 10th Amendment.
WHAT part of THIS do you not understand? The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
YES a right DOES have to be clearly guaranteed. And they ARE. Many people think there is a "right" to free healthcare, others a "right" to free medicine. Do you want the courts deciding THOSE rights too? What about MY "right" to walk about naked? Should that be left to Constitutional interpretation as well. (Trust me... you DONT want me to have this "right".)
And lets NOT forget there IS a way to make those LEGAL rights. It's called the Constitutional Amendment Process. There are 27 so far, so DONT tell me its impossible.
WHY have Legislatures Sully? or even referendums? Seriously?
It appears to me that you want to hand over all decisions (that you dont like how your fellow citizens or elected officials vote on anyway) to men who have NO accountability to ANYONE but a higher judge and in the case of the Supreme Court then THEY would be ultimate dictators deciding for themselves what's good for us NOT ourselves or our elected officials.
Why not let some judge decide who gets a plumbing license? Or what a teacher should be paid or what the fine should be for speeding. After all if I get caught for speeding in one state, I may have to pay more than in another? Is that FAIR? Shouldnt some court make that fair TOO???????
Why should someone have to leave their home to get what they see as a basic human right?
I understand Zapp's point that gays are not a protected class but personally, I don't get why anyone would oppose gay marriage. What is in it for them to not allow two people to marry?
I was specifically responding to the first.
As to the second. Most I imagine object on religious and moral grounds and feel that it contributes to breakdown of the nuclear family which in turn contributes to disintegration of society as a whole. THAT IS WHAT I UNDERSTAND THEIR ARGUMENT TO BE. IT IS NOT NECESSARILY MINE WHICH IS MORE OF A LEGALISTIC VIEWPOINT...so dont bytch at me for how they feel.
The equal protection clause says it all and any laws abridging one persons freedoms over anothers for no good reason violates that clause of the 14th ammendment, "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"
Some people really just need to read and understand the constitution. I gaurantee you the supreme court will rule and overturn any laws abridging a persons ability to obtain equal status as any other simply based up the fact that they happen to be attracted to the member of the same gender.