9th Circuit Assumes Legislative Power In Same Sex Marriage Case

[Skylar]

YES THERE IS. THEY ARE CALLED CHILDREN.

Children aren't a prerequisite of marriage. No one has to have them or be able to have them to get married. You're once again imagining a non-existent legal standard and then applying it only to gays. Logically, either the standard applies to both gays and straights...or neither. And it applies to neither.

Killing your argument yet again.

 

[Skylar]

I cant make heads nor tail out of what you quoted..........I dont think it proves anything..............even if the federal Constitution applies to the states..that really doesnt prove a gay-marriage case anyway.

Really? You couldn't make heads or tails of the meaning of this, huh?

"The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these great fundamental guarantees"

Senator Jacob Howard

Would you like me to walk you through it? The amendment being referenced is the 14th amendment. And the guarentees being referenced are 'all these immunities, privileges, rights, thus guarantied by the Constitution or recognized by it.'

And by Constitution (note the capitalization. Its significant), we're referring to the US Constitution.

Tell me....at what point did you get lost?

 

[johnwk]

You are very much confused about Senator Howard's comments. There is nothing in his comments that he specifically intended by the 14th Amendment to make the first ten amendments to our federal Constitution enforceable upon the States. His remarks were a generalized expression that rights, e.g., those protected by “local constitutions” ought to be protected. He states: ” The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these great fundamental guarantees. . . .”

You simply have no idea what you're talking about.

Now that is a remarkable thing to say when I took the time in POST NO. 44 to provide an abundance of documentation exposing the myth that the 14th Amendment was intended to make the first ten amendments to our federal Constitution enforceable upon the states. I even provided quotes from Bingham who was the author of the 14th Amendment which confirm your belief is without merit. And yet, you cling to your interpretation of Sen. Howard’s intentions while ignoring the overwhelming and preponderance of evidence the incorporation theory is a myth, and unsubstantiated by sufficient documentation.


Additionally, I see you also avoid addressing the preponderance of evidence I provided in POST NO 52 concerning the legislative intent of the 14th Amendment.

I’m beginning to think you are purposely avoiding the mountain of evidence which confirms the 14th Amendment was never intended to make the first ten amendments to our federal Constitution enforceable upon the States by the federal government.

JWK


"On every question of construction [of the Constitution], carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."--Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322.

 

[Antares]

They are the MOST over turned Court in the Nation for good reason.

 

[Skylar]

Now that is a remarkable thing to say when I took the time in POST NO. 44 to provide an abundance of documentation exposing the myth that the 14th Amendment was intended to make the first ten amendments to our federal Constitution enforceable upon the states.

Is that your way of saying that your bizarre 'reimagining' of what Senator Howard stated in his introduction of the 14th amendment didn't work out so well for you? It helps if you actually read the material you're replying to before posting. When you do, its becomes blatantly obvious that Howard was referring to the US constitution and the Bill of Rights. Not any state constitution, as you awkwardly alleged.

And it was the guarantees of the US constitution, including its amendments, that was the purpose of the 14th amendment:

"The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these great fundamental guarantees"

Senator Jacob Howard

He couldn't be clearer. And once again, you're completely ignoring Senator Howard, everything he said, and pretending he doesn't exist

Smiling...or are you still claiming the above quote is my 'imagination' and 'opinion'?

Additionally, I see you also avoid addressing the preponderance of evidence I provided in POST NO 52 concerning the legislative intent of the 14th Amendment.

What you did was vomit up some predigested argument you had with a guy named Alan Gura....

.....in 2002.

Does this look familiar?

Is Alan Gura helping gun grabbers with 2nd Amendment case As Maine Goes

It should. You're not actually reading what you're responding to today.You're reciting a decade old script. And I've gone off script, not offering you Bingham quotes years after the amendment....

.....but direct quotes from Senator Jacob Howard made on the senate floor to introduce the 14th amendment. And the moment I go off script, your entire argument breaks. You start babbling about how what Howard 'really meant' State constitutions when he said 'the Constitution and its first eight amendments". Which is is just silly. He *recited* portions of the US constitution and the Bill of Rights on the Senate floor immediately before referrencing the Constitution and amendments......and you absurdly claim that he wasn't talking about the US Constitution. But *state* constitutions.

Really? You don't do well off script, do you?

Howard utterly obliterates the idea that the 14th amendment wasn't intended to apply the bill of rights to the states. So completely has your argument collapsed, that you now refuse to discuss his clear, unambiguous words on the Senate floor. And oddly try and pretend that he doesn't exist.

Um, how's that working out for you?

 

[guno]

What is the statute number of the new law the court created?

That's the whole point..leftists find activist circuit/appeals court judges who'll rule in their favor on an issue and bypass the constitution.
Now we have a supreme court who are the real "legislators" in america...and just like all the politicians they've been compromised by NSA and they know that if they don't all march in step the world will learn their secrets.
That's why you see so many "about faces" by politicians and judges once they get the "message"

So we have a politicized group of activist judges bypassing the constitution and "making" de facto laws by choosing or refusing to hear certain cases.

Originally having 3 independent branches of government with a checks and balances system ensured that no one branch would accrue too much power....unfortunately our founding fathers couldn't foresee the day when ALL THREE branches of gvmt became corrupt and enabling to each other...At this point the system is corrupt beyond redemption and only a re set will correct it.....and that's coming....

the SC rightly turned down the challenges , and the SC is controlled by conservatives, states cannot vote to deny rights to people,you would think the slope skulled bible thumpers in jesusland would have learned that after getting their asses whipped in the civil war over slavery

 

[Vigilante]

 

[Skylar]

So we're at the part where you just start posting pictures?

 

[Vigilante]

So we're at the part where you just start posting pictures?

Apparently you aren't versed enough to understand them....funny, most others with a high 2 digit IQ get it!

 

[Skylar]

So we're at the part where you just start posting pictures?

Apparently you aren't versed enough to understand them....funny, most others with a high 2 digit IQ get it!

I've commented far more on your pictures than you ever have. Did you bother to read it before you posted it? Or did you just spam it as you do when you reach the limits of your capacity for civil debate?

If you have nothing more to offer, just say so.

 

[johnwk]

Now that is a remarkable thing to say when I took the time in POST NO. 44 to provide an abundance of documentation exposing the myth that the 14th Amendment was intended to make the first ten amendments to our federal Constitution enforceable upon the states.

Is that your way of saying that your bizarre 'reimagining' of what Senator Howard stated in his introduction of the 14th amendment didn't work out so well for you?

I see you are still clinging to your interpretation of Senator Howard's comments while ignoring the mountain of evidence, including that of Bingham, the author of the 14th Amendment, which I provided you with and proves, beyond any reasonable doubt, your incorporation theory is a debunked myth.

It is absolutely amazing to think even the Supreme Court in the Twitch Case was ignorant of your assertion that the 14th Amendment made the federal Bill of Rights enforceable upon the states. Several months after the 14th Amendment was adopted the S.C. decided Twitchell v. Pennsylvania (1869). Twitchell was convicted of murder which his lawyer appealed to the S. C. claiming the conviction relied upon violations of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. The Court rejected the appeal by emphasizing the federal Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government and not the States. Did someone forget to tell the Supreme Court Justices that the 14th Amendment made the Fifth and Sixth Amendments enforceable upon the States?

And why would Congress debate and attempt to pass a constitutional amendment, The Blaine Amendment in 1876, making the First Amendment’s religious prohibition enforceable upon the States if the 14th Amendment already made the First Amendment enforceable upon the States as you suggest?


Heck, even in a dissenting opinion in IN RE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES, 83 U.S. 36 (1872), Justice Field establishes the connection between the Civil Rights Act and the 14th Amendment’s intent to incorporate the Act's objectives into the Constitution, not the first ten amendments to our Constitution. He says:


What, then, are the privileges and immunities which are secured against abridgment by State legislation?

In the first section of the Civil Rights Act Congress has given its interpretation to these terms, or at least has stated some of the rights which, in its judgment, these terms include; it has there declared that they include the right 'to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property.' That act, it is true, was passed before the fourteenth amendment, but the amendment was adopted, as I have already said, to obviate objections to the act, or, speaking more accurately, I should say, to obviate objections to legislation [83 U.S. 36, 97] of a similar character, extending the protection of the National government over the common rights of all citizens of the United States. Accordingly, after its ratification, Congress re-enacted the act under the belief that whatever doubts may have previously existed of its validity, they were removed by the amendment.

It should further be noted that if the legislative intent of the 14th Amendment was to allow Congress and federal judges a power to enforce the federal Bill of Rights upon the States as you suggest, Congress was unaware of such intentions or they were derelict in their duties as there was no mention of this in the enforcement Acts Congress passed just after the 14th Amendment was adopted.

When you get around to providing sufficient documentation to support your notion, something other than a passing comment made by Sen. Howard which is contradicted by the mountain of evidence I provided to you, feel free to post it here so we can all learn from your scholarly grasp on the subject.

JWK



"On every question of construction [of the Constitution], carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."--Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322.

 

[Skylar]

I see you are still clinging to your interpretation of Senator Howard's comments while ignoring the mountain of evidence, including that of Bingham, the author of the 14th Amendment, which I provided you with and proves, beyond any reasonable doubt, your incorporation theory is a debunked myth.

These aren't interpretations, my little script reader. These are direct quotes.

Now, sir, here is a mass of privileges, immunities, and rights, some of them secured by the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution, which I have recited, some by the first eight amendments of the Constitution

Senator Jacob Howard

He read from the US Constitution and the first 8 amendments to the US constitution. If, as you claim, what he 'really meant' was State Constitutions, why then did he read the the US constitution and the amendments to it?

You have no answer. Your reasoning is gibbering nonsense. And you've completely abandoned them. And well you should. They were poorly thought through.

So with it firmly established that Howard was obviously referring to the US constitution, and the Bill of Rights (at least the first 8 amendments of it), this statement hammers home the unambiguous purpose of the 14th amendment:

The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these great fundamental guarantees...

Senator Jacob Howard

Smiling....did I imagine that too? Or were you just woefully uninformed on the topic, reciting a predigested script from 10 years ago that was clearly inadequate to carry your argument? You don't do well when off your decade old script, bud. And Howard absolutely destroys your claims. But it gets so much worse.

But I may say that the committee has under consideration another general amendment to the constitution which looks to grant of express power to the Congress of the United States to enforce in behalf of every citizen of every State and of every territory in the Union the rights which were guaranteed to him from the beginning, but which guaranteed has unhappily been disregarded by more than one State of the Union, defiantly disregarded, simply because of a want of power in congress to enforce that guarantee.

John Bingham,

A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates 1774 - 1875

Now what guarantees could John Bingham possibly be referring to? Per you, John didn't want to enforce the bill of rights onto the several states, huh? John might have something to say about that:

The proposition pending before the House is simply a proposition to arm the Congress of the United States, by the consent of the people of the United States, with the power to enforce the bill of rights as it stands in the Constitution today.

John Bingham

Laughing....did I imagine that too? Quick, back to your script! I'm sure it has something to say on the matter. Because you certainly don't. And it still gets worse:

Gentlemen, admit the force of the provisions in the bill of rights that the citizens of the United States shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of of citizens of the United States in the several States, and that no personal shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.

John Bingham

But John didn't want the bill of rights enforced upon the States, huh? Laughing.....and astonishingly, it still gets worse:

Is the bill of rights to stand in our Constitution hereafter, as in the past five years within eleven states, a mere dead letter? It is absolutely essential to the safety of the people that it should be enforced.

John Bingham

And who, pray tell, should the bill of rights be enforced upon?

.....The question is, simply, whether you will give by this amendment to the people of the United States the power, by legislative enactment, to punish offices of States for violation of the oaths enjoyed up on them by their Constitution? That is the question and the whole question. The adoption of the proposed amendment will take from the States no rights that belong to the States. They elect their legislatures, they enact their laws for the punishment of crimes against life, liberty, or property, but in the event of the adoption of this amendment, if they conspire together to enact laws refusing equal protection to life, liberty or property, the Congress is thereby bested with power to hold them to answer before the bar of the national courts for the violations of their oaths and of the rights of their fellow men.

John Bingham

That's right....the States. But lets kick a dead horse, shall we?

But you are powerless in time of peace in the presences of the laws of South Carolina, Alabama, and Mississippi, as states admitted and restored to the Union, to enforce the rights of the citizens of the United States with their limits. Do gentlemen entertain for a moment the thought that the enforcement of these provisions of the Constitution was not to be considered essential?

John Bingham

Lets kick it again.

....As a further security for the enforcement of the Constitution, and especially of this sacred bill of rights, to all the citizen and all the people of the United States, it is further provided that the members of several State Legislatures and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by oath or affirm to support this constitution.

John Bingham

And John Bingham expresses his desire to expand the Bill of Rights to everywhere in the United States repeatedly....as he believed that had it been enforced, there would have been no Civil War:

I beg gentlemen to consider that I do not oppose any legislation which is authorized by the Constitution of my country to enforce in its letter and its spirit the bill of rights as embodied in that Constitution. I know that the enforcement of the bill of rights is the want of the republic. I know if it had been enforced in good faith in every State of the Union the calamities and conflicts and crimes and sacrifices of the past five years would have been impossible.

John Bingham

And again....

Mr. Speaker I would further remark in this connection, I honor the mover of this bill for the purpose he seeks to which is to compel the exercise of good faith by the States on of this reserved power. I cast no reflection upon the honorable committee of this House in seeking to remedy, if possible, the treat wrongs that have hitherto been inflicted upon citizens of the United States, I may say in almost every State of the Union, by State authority, and inflicted, too, in the past , without redress. I am with him in a earnest to desire to have the bill of rights in your Constitution enforced everywhere.

John was championing the new amendment because he knew that that US government lacked the authority to enforce the bill of rights upon the States:

If the bill of rights, as has been solemnly ruled by the Supreme Court of the United States does not limit the powers of the States and prohibit such gross injustice by the States, it does limit the power of Congress and prohibit any such legislation by Congress.

John's position that the purpose of the amendment was to empower congress to enforce the bill of rights upon the States is iterated and reiterated again and again and again and again. Every single quote above is directly from the congressional floor. His sentiment mirrored by Senator Howard when the 14th amendment was introduced to the Senate. And reiterated by Bingham AFTER the passage of the Amendment.

And you ignore it all. Hope you've got a script for that.

 

[Vigilante]

So we're at the part where you just start posting pictures?

Apparently you aren't versed enough to understand them....funny, most others with a high 2 digit IQ get it!

I've commented far more on your pictures than you ever have. Did you bother to read it before you posted it? Or did you just spam it as you do when you reach the limits of your capacity for civil debate?

If you have nothing more to offer, just say so.

You do know Skyhook, that the courts decision is NOT law, until the legislation, and executive body write up a law conforming to that decision, approve it in the legislature and have the chief executive sign it into law, don't you, boy?

Courts Constitutionally can NOT make law, they can only rule on a proposed, or passed law. Since SCOTUS refused to rule on it, the laws fall back to each state, and their legislatures and their governor MUST write and sign the same sex statutes into law..... many governors will refuse to sign that, making all same sex marriage's within that state that were performed after the SCOTUS decision, NULL and VOID!

 

[Silhouette]

You do know Skyhook, that the courts decision is NOT law, until the legislation, and executive body write up a law conforming to that decision, approve it in the legislature and have the chief executive sign it into law, don't you, boy?

Courts Constitutionally can NOT make law, they can only rule on a proposed, or passed law. Since SCOTUS refused to rule on it, the laws fall back to each state, and their legislatures and their governor MUST write and sign the same sex statutes into law..... many governors will refuse to sign that, making all same sex marriage's within that state that were performed after the SCOTUS decision, NULL and VOID!

In CA, the only way a statute may be reversed is by a new statute voted on by the citizens. Right now there is no law on marriages there and any other state that functions the same way constitutionally. I suspect to avoid charges of sedition, the legislature and governor there dare not try to subvert the Will of 7 million without the final stamp of SCOTUS. As it is now, ANYONE can get married there....polygamists, siblings, you name it...I think they'd only have to be consenting adults because there's a law about entering contracts for minors and laws against slavery. Other than that, anything goes. Polygamists, knock yourselves out!

Why should gays be the only ones exploiting this legal limbo?

 

[Skylar]

Courts Constitutionally can NOT make law, they can only rule on a proposed, or passed law.

Courts can constitutionally overturn laws that violate the rights of the individual. And should.

Since SCOTUS refused to rule on it, the laws fall back to each state, and their legislatures and their governor MUST write and sign the same sex statutes into law..... many governors will refuse to sign that, making all same sex marriage's within that state that were performed after the SCOTUS decision, NULL and VOID!

Nope.

The authority to rule on the constitutionality of a given law resides with the federal judiciary. Not just the supreme court. The USSC creates what is called 'binding precedent', which applies to all courts everywhere. Lower federal courts don't. They simply rule on the cases in front of them. And their rulings only effect those cases, or at the most, their appellant district. And the highest federal court ruling is authoritative.

When the USSC refused cert for the 4th, 7th, and 10th appellant districts, the highest of the various lower court rulings went into force. Since the federal judiciary ruled that gay marriage is unconstitutional the laws forbidding it are invalid and unenforceable. Thus, gay marriages are legal in the 4th, 7th and 10th appellant circuits for all intents and purposes. I suspect that Nevada will start issuing marriage licenses sometime next week. N. Carolina is already modifying their marriage certificates to allow for gay and lesbian weddings.

Idaho has a stay, being in the 9th appellant circuit. And the USSC hasn't decided if they will grant cert to appeals in the 9th circuit yet. The pattern established so far points to no. But who can really say but the supreme court justices themselves.

That's the way its going down. You can make up any alternate reality version of events you like, citing no one but yourself. But they matter to no one but the fella you're citing. And legally affect even fewer folks.

 

[Skylar]

You do know Skyhook, that the courts decision is NOT law, until the legislation, and executive body write up a law conforming to that decision, approve it in the legislature and have the chief executive sign it into law, don't you, boy?

Courts Constitutionally can NOT make law, they can only rule on a proposed, or passed law. Since SCOTUS refused to rule on it, the laws fall back to each state, and their legislatures and their governor MUST write and sign the same sex statutes into law..... many governors will refuse to sign that, making all same sex marriage's within that state that were performed after the SCOTUS decision, NULL and VOID!

In CA, the only way a statute may be reversed is by a new statute voted on by the citizens.

Nope. A statute can be reversed if a sufficiently high court rules it violates the constitution. As any law that violates rights is invalid and unenforceable. So the law may remain on the books. But much like the Alabama constitutional prohibition of interracial marriage that remained until 2000 despite being overturned in 1967....it was effectively meaningless. And interracial couples got married whenever they saw fit.

Just like the gays and lesbians do right now in California.

Right now there is no law on marriages there and any other state that functions the same way constitutionally. I suspect to avoid charges of sedition, the legislature and governor there dare not try to subvert the Will of 7 million without the final stamp of SCOTUS.

Given that you don't have the slightest clue what sedition actually is, what you 'suspect' doesn't amount to much. As usual, you're letting your imagination run wild. And then assuming that anything you imagine must be the law, the motivation of other people, legal precedent...whatever.

Sigh...if only reality worked that way.

As it is now, ANYONE can get married there....polygamists, siblings, you name it...I think they'd only have to be consenting adults because there's a law about entering contracts for minors and laws against slavery.

Says you. Citing you. Which has no legal relevance whatsoever. Neither the laws nor the court ruling back up anything you've said. If you believe otherwise, quote them.

You'll find you simply don't know what you're talking about.[/quote][/QUOTE]

 

[Silhouette]

The authority to rule on the constitutionality of a given law resides with the federal judiciary. Not just the supreme court. The USSC creates what is called 'binding precedent', which applies to all courts everywhere. Lower federal courts don't. They simply rule on the cases in front of them. And their rulings only effect those cases, or at the most, their appellant district. And the highest federal court ruling is authoritative....

hmmm....I wonder if an example of an expressed or implied [Constitutionally guaranteed] "binding precedent" would be the unchallenged right for a state to self-rule on issues of domestic local law like marriage until and unless the SCOTUS says otherwise? In other words, the default "win" in the interim would have to be given to state's self-rule while the burden is upon those who have no constitutional protection [there is nothing mentioned in the constitution about guarantees as to "gay" marriage specifically...as further confirmed by what was said repeatedly in Windsor 2013] as to marriage. The idea of two people play acting "mom and dad" is brand spanking new. The right to self rule is as old and rock solid as the Constitution itself. It could even be said it is the essence of the Constitution itself. You don't "suspend the essence" in the interim in favor of a newcoming challenge to that essence!

The default condition is rightly and properly state's self-rule. The question of this brand new concept of two people of the same gender role-playing husband/wife mom/dad is the one that has to wait...

...and perhaps that's why Justice Kennedy recently acted, wisely so, to protect that essence in the interim...

 

[Vigilante]

On Monday's Mark Levin Show: Mark talks about the Supreme Court's decision not to hear same-sex marriage ban cases from a couple states, thus paving the way for it to become legal. Mark says that regardless of what you may think about marriage, this is an attack on the Constitution and of state and individual rights. If the people of a state voted against same-sex marriage, now the court has stepped in and said that essentially they can't do that. Once again the Court is seeking to redefine marriage, just as they redefined the law with Obamacare and other cases. Our rights are being stripped away and this is just another example of why the Article V Convention process is so important.

Read more: http://www.970wfla.com/onair/mark-levin-1660/mark-talks-about-the-supreme-courts-12839685#ixzz3FnxtweDL

 

[Skylar]

The authority to rule on the constitutionality of a given law resides with the federal judiciary. Not just the supreme court. The USSC creates what is called 'binding precedent', which applies to all courts everywhere. Lower federal courts don't. They simply rule on the cases in front of them. And their rulings only effect those cases, or at the most, their appellant district. And the highest federal court ruling is authoritative....

hmmm....I wonder if an example of an expressed or implied [Constitutionally guaranteed] "binding precedent" would be the unchallenged right for a state to self-rule on issues of domestic local law like marriage until and unless the SCOTUS says otherwise?

It was in Loving V. Virginia. Nixing your entire line of reasoning.

In other words, the default "win" in the interim would have to be given to state's self-rule while the burden is upon those who have no constitutional protection [there is nothing mentioned in the constitution about guarantees as to "gay" marriage specifically...as further confirmed by what was said repeatedly in Windsor 2013] as to marriage.

Actually marriage is a right. And all rights are protected.

The idea of two people play acting "mom and dad" is brand spanking new. The right to self rule is as old and rock solid as the Constitution itself. It could even be said it is the essence of the Constitution itself. You don't "suspend the essence" in the interim in favor of a newcoming challenge to that essence!

Children aren't a requirement to marry in any state. Nor is the ability to have a children. What you're proposing is that we make up a legal standard that applies to no one, apply it only to gays and then exclude them from marriage because of it.

The bug of your proposal hits the windshield of equal protection in the law every time. Which is why gay marriage bans have been overturned by just about every federal court to hear them.

The default condition is rightly and properly state's self-rule. The question of this brand new concept of two people of the same gender role-playing husband/wife mom/dad is the one that has to wait...

Children are neither the basis of marriage nor a requirement of it in any state. Thus your 'brand new concept' is irrelevant to the validity of a marriage. You're just flinging shit on the barn wall and hoping something sticks. And so far, nothing is.

...and perhaps that's why Justice Kennedy recently acted, wisely so, to protect that essence in the interim...

Perhaps. Or perhaps he will do exactly what he did with Utah. Issue the stay and then deny the appeal anyway. I dunno. You dunno.

 

[Skylar]

Mark says that regardless of what you may think about marriage, this is an attack on the Constitution and of state and individual rights.

Given that neither the constitution nor the state nor the individual have the authority to violate someone else's rights, that entire line of reasoning gets tossed on the midden heap where it belongs.

What else you got?