Sorry, this applies on both ends. One of his key assertions was that the Constitution does not define marriage. Even as the 14th Amendment grants equal protection under the law, it doesn't define marriage. So, how can people ask for equality under a premise that doesn't exist in the Constitution? The law itself does not define marriage.
On the other hand, anti-gay proponents have the same problem. They want to use the Constitution to claim that marriage should be between a man and a woman. Sorry, again the Constitution does not define marriage. This is the wrong way to deny someone their rights based on a premise that doesn't exist within the constitution.
Good points. But the privelege, duty and right to define marriage at the state level was just decided in Windsor 2013 as a state's "unquestioned authority". The exception they pointed out was if Loving applied. IF. Not THAT it already did. Loving made zero anticipation of a person's sexual behaviors "as race" when it was decided. Since sexual behaviors AREN'T a race...and so far they aren't a religion, the only reason opponents point to the 14th in these discussions is to say, as you just did, "where in the Constitution does it say two people of the same gender wanting to marry enjoy the right to defy the definition of the mechanics of marriage [not the constitution as to race] but the actual machinery "man/woman ...father/mother..resulting children with male/female parents" agains the majority Will of their state.
The constitution of the individuals in marriage, the nouns, the beings can be any race whatsoever. But they must be adult and they must consent. The mechanics "male/female" are not up to completely change as a "right". One of the main and most important reasons that is, is that a state enjoys the dominant right to incentivize marriage to provide BOTH a mother AND a father to children. This is in its best interest because statistically children do best with BOTH their mother AND their father raising them. Mothers and fathers of children, their natural blood kin in the overwhelming majority of cases [every child has a mother and a father without exception] are biologically predisposed and instinctively tuned to provide the most regard to their young. This is the case in the overwhelming majority of the time. And each state's majority has a RIGHT to incentivize this relationship, while it discourages things like two people of the same gender role-playing a fake version of "mom" or a fake version of "dad" to a child.
A child will grow up to know and realize one of its parents was male and one was female. To try to tell it that "the natural arrangement could be anything" [for if same sex marriage gets federal protection, other "arrangements" cannot be denied due to precedent + marriage equality] is going to run up against a questioning adolescent who may have trouble even relating to the gender not represented in his or her home. They may consider that gender "disposable/unnecessary", which has deep psychological ramifications if that happens to be THEIR gender, for example. They may even experience disparaging regard for their gender if it's the opposite of the gay parents.
The perfect example of this is the boy of the two lesbians in California, who, with the assistance of "medical doctors" began drugging their 11 year old son with female hormones because *somehow* the boy got it in his head that he didn't want to be a boy anymore. So the lesbians gleefully began drugging him to be female to "prepare his body better in case he decides he wants to be a girl" when he can legally choose to have the assisted healthy organ amputation:
A lesbian couple in California who say their 11-year-old son Tommy who wants to be a girl named Tammy are giving their child hormone blockers that delay the onset of puberty
Controversial Therapy for Pre-Teen Transgender Patient Raises Questions Fox News
I'd say that's an assited negative view of the boy's gender and males in general in his mind, I'm sure.
Of course all of this is common sense. We know marriage is about children. We know the male/female components natural within marriage prepare the child for interaction with both genders as s/he becomes a fledged member of society. Children come in both genders and raising them to pretend that one gender isn't necessary for "the family" [which in their mind they extrapolate to mean "all society"...and even themselves], is a recipe for social disaster at some point in the future. Certainly it is a disaster immediately if that child happens to be the opposite gender of its "same-sexed parents".
A state has a right not to foster the production of imbalanced individuals. A child may be in a single parent household, but that child looks to society to tell it [if it's gender is the opposite of its parent particularly] "hey, it's unfortunate what happened to both of your male/female parents. But society is demonstrating to you that your gender is necessary and VITAL to a regular married pairing. So as you grow up, you too may be a part of that pair and essential component in order to produce and raise children.
This debate will come down to the rights of children to see both males and females paired as parents in their home, or in society at large [their mental extrapolation of "home"] vs what the cult of LGBT wants to do to the word "marriage".
