It's not that they want to "ban" gay marriage, it's that they believe it's an oxymoron and marriage is the union of a man and woman.
True Boss the intent is to clarify marriage as between man and woman.
but the RESULT in written laws is to exclude same sex marriage.
so it has the effect of a BAN.
Former U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I understand what you are saying.
It is similar to saying that courts, in striking down abortion laws as unconstitutional by conflicts over substantive due process,
the EFFECT ends up "legalizing abortion"
The intent is not to promote abortion or to "legalize murder"
but by removing the restrictions AND NOT REPLACING THEM WITH CONSTITUTIONAL ALTERNATIVES
then the EFFECT is "legalizing it" without implementing replacement protections that would satisfy pro-life beliefs
that otherwise see the ruling as biased toward "legalizing murder."
Maybe Boss we can use this to explain to JakeStarkey the same concept with ACA mandates.
Even though the INTENT of sincere supporters is not to violate free choice, but think this is truly helping to provide affordable health care,
the EFFECT of the ACA mandates ends up PENALIZING Free Choice and Discriminating against people whose beliefs are violated.
Clearly that is not the intent of people like JakeStarkey and C_Clayton_Jones
who can't even understand or imagine how any choices are being violated and any freedom is being lost here.
So there is a divorce between the intent and the effect in practice.
Same with the explanation of what is meant by the marriage laws amendments
but which in effect constitute a ban.