Well let's see how your 14th amendment applies....
Our 14th applies where ever someone's rights are involved. Being gay doesn't mean that the 14th amendment applies to you any less than if you were black, or white, or a woman, or a Jew. If you're an American, you have rights. And they are protected from State violation.
"Homosexual". Is not a race, it is not a sex as in man or woman. In Alabama, a man cannot marry a man, and a woman cannot marry a woman. Now, your 14th would actually apply if a man could marry a man, yet a woman could not marry a woman, then you would have a law that allowed one sex a "PRIVILEGE " (NOT a RIGHT) while another sex was being denied the same privilege.
Show me where in our 14th amendment it states that it only apples on issues of race.
There is no such passage. It applies to the privileges and immunities of US citizens. And requires that states apply the law equally. If a state law violates rights or is applied unequally, it violates our 14th amendment. And the federal courts can intercede to prevent it.
And marriage is a right. As Loving v. Virignia demonstrates elegantly, the restrictions in the laws themselves must be constitutional. In Virginia, the law prohibited interracial marriage. This applied to both blacks and whites, and per its advocates was thus 'equal'. But the restriction itself was unconstitutional. And thus overturned by the courts.
Similarly, the ban on same sex marriage itself must be constitutional. Its not enough to apply unconstitutional restrictions 'equally' as was done with interracial marriage bans. And same sex marriage bans fail just as thoroughly as interracial marriage bans. Says who? Says the 44 of 46 federal rulings on the matter. With the USSC likely to affirm the same in June.
A marriage contract is between a man and a woman.
Says you
. In 37 of 50 States, it also includes a man and a man or a woman and a woman. Your argument is based on the absurd and provably false proposition that legal definitions can NEVER change. And that's nonsense. Legal definitions can change easily with a simple legislative act or a single court ruling.
You can ignore this. But you can't make the law or the courts ignore this.
Now, you exhibit scorn between separate but equal concerning a marriage contract and a civil union contract, yet all is separate but equal when it comes to sex.
But they're not equal. Not in practice, with many states prioritizing marriage over civil unions. Or in recognition, where many states don't even recognize civil unions. Or in benefits, where many federal benefits don't follow civil unions.
So why would gays settle for a civil union that is clearly inferior, when they have a right to marriage, which is clearly superior? Its a no-brainer.
I am pleased to see such division in your U.S. Grow with these issues, it is my hope to see another implosion, thus will benefit our cause of seeing an end to the occupation.
And I have you on record rooting against our nation and hoping for its collapse. Its amazing how much of your rhetoric sounds like something from the Soviet Era Politburo. Anything you'd like to tell us, Comrade.
