Let the States Decide- ALA Supreme Court Justice urges Defiance- Gay Marraige

[NYcarbineer]

Why are the RWnuts pretending they'd be happy if the states decided these issues,

given that they've thrown fits over the fact that, for example, the wedding cake makers got busted for refusing to serve same sex couples -

those were STATE laws, not federal laws.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Gee I dont see where it specified homosexuals at all in the statute. Looks like you're wrong. Again.

1. I've made the letters big and red so you can see them better.

2. The sodomy laws were applicable only in cases of the same sex, which means straights that have oral or anal sex with members of the opposite sex aren't included.

*********************************************************************************************

Texas Penal Code - Section 21.06. Homosexual Conduct
§ 21.06. HOMOSEXUAL CONDUCT.

[This section was declared unconstitutional by Lawrence v. Texas,
123 S.Ct. 2472.]
(a) A person commits an offense if he engages in deviate
sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex.
(b) An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.


Texas Penal Code - Section 21.06. Homosexual Conduct - Texas Attorney Resources - Texas Laws


>>>>

 

[The Rabbi]

Why are the RWnuts pretending they'd be happy if the states decided these issues,

given that they've thrown fits over the fact that, for example, the wedding cake makers got busted for refusing to serve same sex couples -

those were STATE laws, not federal laws.

Those are hardly comparable.
Nice to have you back, btw.

 

[The Rabbi]

Gee I dont see where it specified homosexuals at all in the statute. Looks like you're wrong. Again.

1. I've made the letters big and red so you can see them better.

2. The sodomy laws were applicable only in cases of the same sex, which means straights that have oral or anal sex with members of the opposite sex aren't included.

*********************************************************************************************

Texas Penal Code - Section 21.06. Homosexual Conduct
§ 21.06. HOMOSEXUAL CONDUCT.

[This section was declared unconstitutional by Lawrence v. Texas,
123 S.Ct. 2472.]
(a) A person commits an offense if he engages in deviate
sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex.
(b) An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.


Texas Penal Code - Section 21.06. Homosexual Conduct - Texas Attorney Resources - Texas Laws


>>>>

I see you flunked reading. Or logic. Or something.
You didnt have to be homosexual to be arrested and charged under that statute. Capiche?

 

[kaz]

So you want to know how scientific studies apply to your personal anecdote? That's like some moron saying smoking doesn't cause lung cancer because you know a smoker that didn't die of it.

But I'll take a shot. What it sound like is that you needed the structurer not the nurturer.

"Generally speaking, there is this dynamic that plays out among parents: one becomes the nurturer and the other becomes the structurer," she explained. "What I've found is that it doesn't matter which parent takes on which role; so long as the parents serve in these capacities, kids will be happy."

Do Kids Care If Their Parents Adhere to Traditional Gender Roles - Atlantic Mobile

In a single parent household, you only had half the ideal...which is two parents.

Your reading skills are atrocious. The sad thing is they let people graduate from high school with so little reading comprehension.

Allegedly she was in the military. How would you like that makng decisions on life and death for you?

"That" did for 20 years and you seem to have survived.

Now my legal spouse gets all the benefits of being married to a military retiree. Thanks SCOTUS!

Milk the taxpayers. It's all gays really are about.

Animus is all anti gay laws are about. Go ahead and take away the tax breaks and other benefits for being married. Let us know how that campaign goes.

You're the animus one

 

[WorldWatcher]

Gee I dont see where it specified homosexuals at all in the statute. Looks like you're wrong. Again.

1. I've made the letters big and red so you can see them better.

2. The sodomy laws were applicable only in cases of the same sex, which means straights that have oral or anal sex with members of the opposite sex aren't included.

*********************************************************************************************

Texas Penal Code - Section 21.06. Homosexual Conduct
§ 21.06. HOMOSEXUAL CONDUCT.

[This section was declared unconstitutional by Lawrence v. Texas,
123 S.Ct. 2472.]
(a) A person commits an offense if he engages in deviate
sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex.
(b) An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.


Texas Penal Code - Section 21.06. Homosexual Conduct - Texas Attorney Resources - Texas Laws


>>>>

I see you flunked reading. Or logic. Or something.
You didnt have to be homosexual to be arrested and charged under that statute. Capiche?

As a heterosexual do you normally perform sodomy on other males?

Before the Lawrence v. Texas case made the law unenforceable I can see it now. "Judge - I'm a heterosexual male, that law doesn't apply to me. I was giving my special friend a blowjob, but since I'm straight the law doesn't apply."

Ya, that would have worked.


>>>>

 

[The Rabbi]

Gee I dont see where it specified homosexuals at all in the statute. Looks like you're wrong. Again.

1. I've made the letters big and red so you can see them better.

2. The sodomy laws were applicable only in cases of the same sex, which means straights that have oral or anal sex with members of the opposite sex aren't included.

*********************************************************************************************

Texas Penal Code - Section 21.06. Homosexual Conduct
§ 21.06. HOMOSEXUAL CONDUCT.

[This section was declared unconstitutional by Lawrence v. Texas,
123 S.Ct. 2472.]
(a) A person commits an offense if he engages in deviate
sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex.
(b) An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.


Texas Penal Code - Section 21.06. Homosexual Conduct - Texas Attorney Resources - Texas Laws


>>>>

I see you flunked reading. Or logic. Or something.
You didnt have to be homosexual to be arrested and charged under that statute. Capiche?

As a heterosexual to you normally perform sodomy on other males?

>>>>

Me, no. You, probably every day.
But you understand heterosexuals engage in gay sex sometimes too. Right?

 

[bodecea]

Doesn't matter. Don't let the radical right get under your skin. Theirs is a losing position on this one. Any state attempting to deny marriage rights to gays will be slapped by the courts.

Argument 2. And the Circuit Court in OH apparently disagrees as gay marriage is still not recognized in TN.

We're a democracy of judges, the majority of judges wins now...

1/3rd of our government....checks and balances. Read up on it sometime.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

We are a Republic, not a Democracy. Didn't you ever take a Government class?

Oh, is that the excuse the Left uses to subvert the will of the people?

In fact, every time I hear that idiocy, "we are not a democracy, we're a republic" I want to scream because the person saying it thinks their educated when in fact they're a buffoon. We're actually both. .

Here is what the claim was

We are a democracy, if the majority speaks, they get their way. Period.

We are not that kind of democracy- we are arguably a Constitutional Democratic Republic- i.e. our entire system of government is determined by our Constitution, we use a Democratic process(but not direct Democracy) to elect our representatives.

But to say simply 'we are a Democracy' is at best incomplete and when arguing that the majority gets whatever it wants, is just totally false.

Pure democracies and pure republics are both oppressive forms of government for the reasons I gave. Right now the pendulum is swung too far toward republicanism. Wisconsin is a good example. The people voted to restrict public unions and the unions had it stopped in the courts. When we reach the point that the minority can have any law they don't like overturned in court, then democracy is frustrated, the people believing an oligarchy runs the country and their voice doesn't count. Democracy should have the final word unless there's a grievous breech in civil liberties. And some states allowing gay marriage while others don't doesn't fit that description.

Rights exist and are protected for the sake of the minority. The majority rarely has to have its rights protected. They can act in their own interests. But the minority is where rights are truly tested, where they actually need protecting.

The idea that our republic is broken if the rights of minorities are protected is nonsense.

The only problem is when rights have no limits and begin to crowd out democracy and the right of the people to shape the government they live under. We are becoming less a government by the people and more a government by the judges. When the pendulum swings to far to republicanism, it becomes tyranny because laws are no longer decided by the democratic process, but rather by what a judge can be convinced the law should be. That's not America.

Nonsense.

The people have never had the authority to enact measures repugnant to the Constitution, such as laws that deny gay Americans equal protection of the law.

The people are at liberty to enact laws as they see fit provided they do so in good faith, and where those laws comport with the Constitution and its case law.

Laws enacted to prohibit gay Americans from entering into marriage contracts are done so in bad faith, motivated solely by animus toward same-sex couples.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Doesn't matter. Don't let the radical right get under your skin. Theirs is a losing position on this one. Any state attempting to deny marriage rights to gays will be slapped by the courts.

Argument 2. And the Circuit Court in OH apparently disagrees as gay marriage is still not recognized in TN.

We're a democracy of judges, the majority of judges wins now...

We're a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy, whose citizens are subject solely to the rule of law, not men, as men are incapable of ruling justly – laws designed to deny gay Americans their civil rights are proof of that.

And when the people err and enact measures that disadvantage a class of persons merely as a consequence of who they are, those disadvantaged have the right to seek relief in Federal court, where the merits of their case is determined in accordance with the rule of law.

Judges rule on these cases pursuant to the Constitution and its case law, as authorized by Articles III and VI. Measures found to be un-Constitutional are appropriately invalidated.

Therefore, it's incumbent upon the people, state lawmakers, and officers of the state to know Constitutional jurisprudence, to obey and follow the Constitution and its case law, as when a measure is indeed determined to be un-Constitutional, the fault lies solely with the state, not the judges who follow the law.

 

[Chris]

Bigotry is the republican core value.

 

[Syriusly]

Should blacks be allowed to vote? Let the states decide.

Yeah, we tried that - letting the states decide on issues of equal protection didn't work out so well.

False analogy

Bullshit reply

Black and Gay are different issues. There were laws saying what blacks could and could not do. There is no such law for gays, gays can do exactly the same things straights can. It's a false analogy. You can like it or not, but I'm not explaining one issue in relation to a completely different issue.

Incorrect.

There were laws that controlled the lives of gay Americans as well, laws that violated their civil rights just as the rights of African-Americans were violated.

For example, in Colorado, Amendment 2 made it illegal for LGBT residents of that state to avail themselves of anti-discrimination laws. The Colorado Supreme Court struck down that measure as a violation of the 14th Amendment, whose ruling was affirmed by the US Supreme Court (Romer v. Evans).

In Texas it was illegal for consenting adult gay men to engage in sex in the privacy of their own homes. The Texas law was likewise invalidated by the Supreme Court for violating the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment (Lawrence v. Texas).

Just as African-Americans were compelled to fight for their civil rights in the courts a generation ago to strike down discriminatory, un-Constitutional measures, so too must gay Americans fight for their civil rights today; against unjust measures violating the equal protection rights of same-sex couples.

You are incorrect. The Texas statute made male sodomy a crime. It didnt matter if you were gay or straight. Similarly with all the other examples.

I will let the Court address that claim:

The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to choose to enter upon relationships in the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons. Pp. 3—6.

The longstanding criminal prohibition of homosexual sodomy upon which Bowers placed such reliance is as consistent with a general condemnation of nonprocreative sex as it is with an established tradition of prosecuting acts because of their homosexual character

It does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. Petitioners’ right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in private conduct without government intervention. Casey, supra, at 847. The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the individual’s personal and private life. Pp. 17—18.

 

[Syriusly]

Doesn't matter. Don't let the radical right get under your skin. Theirs is a losing position on this one. Any state attempting to deny marriage rights to gays will be slapped by the courts.

Argument 2. And the Circuit Court in OH apparently disagrees as gay marriage is still not recognized in TN.

We're a democracy of judges, the majority of judges wins now...

And that is an example of a fallacy.

 

[Syriusly]

.

Bullshit reply

Black and Gay are different issues. There were laws saying what blacks could and could not do. There is no such law for gays, gays can do exactly the same things straights can. It's a false analogy. You can like it or not, but I'm not explaining one issue in relation to a completely different issue.

Incorrect.

There were laws that controlled the lives of gay Americans as well, laws that violated their civil rights just as the rights of African-Americans were violated.

For example, in Colorado, Amendment 2 made it illegal for LGBT residents of that state to avail themselves of anti-discrimination laws. The Colorado Supreme Court struck down that measure as a violation of the 14th Amendment, whose ruling was affirmed by the US Supreme Court (Romer v. Evans).

In Texas it was illegal for consenting adult gay men to engage in sex in the privacy of their own homes. The Texas law was likewise invalidated by the Supreme Court for violating the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment (Lawrence v. Texas).

Just as African-Americans were compelled to fight for their civil rights in the courts a generation ago to strike down discriminatory, un-Constitutional measures, so too must gay Americans fight for their civil rights today; against unjust measures violating the equal protection rights of same-sex couples.

You are incorrect. The Texas statute made male sodomy a crime. It didnt matter if you were gay or straight. Similarly with all the other examples.

Well, how many straights were arrested and charged with that statute?

How many gays were? Virtually none.

If it was 'virtually none' then there would have been no Lawrence v. Texas.

The statute was on the books, and was used specifically to arrest two men engaged in homosexual sex in private.

Louisiana arrested 12 men for responding to ads for homosexual sex as late as 2013.

Last week, the Advocatereported some troubling news out of Louisiana: Since 2011, at least a dozen men have been arrested on a count of “attempted crimes against nature”—that is, an offer to have sex with another man. Even worse, the arrests were part of a sting operation in which undercover officers propositioned men, lured them into an apartment, then promptly arrested them and brought them to jail. The latest arrest occurred on July 18.

 

[Syriusly]

Gee I dont see where it specified homosexuals at all in the statute. Looks like you're wrong. Again.

1. I've made the letters big and red so you can see them better.

2. The sodomy laws were applicable only in cases of the same sex, which means straights that have oral or anal sex with members of the opposite sex aren't included.

*********************************************************************************************

Texas Penal Code - Section 21.06. Homosexual Conduct
§ 21.06. HOMOSEXUAL CONDUCT.

[This section was declared unconstitutional by Lawrence v. Texas,
123 S.Ct. 2472.]
(a) A person commits an offense if he engages in deviate
sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex.
(b) An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.


Texas Penal Code - Section 21.06. Homosexual Conduct - Texas Attorney Resources - Texas Laws


>>>>

I see you flunked reading. Or logic. Or something.
You didnt have to be homosexual to be arrested and charged under that statute. Capiche?

As a heterosexual to you normally perform sodomy on other males?

>>>>

Me, no. You, probably every day.
But you understand heterosexuals engage in gay sex sometimes too. Right?

Just to be clear- you really believe that the Texas statute that forbade homosexual conduct was not targeting homosexuals- but homosexuals and heterosexuals who happen to have sex with men?

 

[Syriusly]

And another interesting quote from the concurring opinion of Lawrence:

The Texas statute makes homosexuals unequal in the eyes of the law by making particular conduct--and only that conduct--subject to criminal sanction. It appears that prosecutions under Texas' sodomy law are rare. See State v. Morales, 869 S.W. 2d 941, 943 (Tex. 1994) (noting in 1994 that § 21.06 "has not been, and in all probability will not be, enforced against private consensual conduct between adults"). This case shows, however, that prosecutions under § 21.06 do occur. And while the penalty imposed on petitioners in this case was relatively minor, the consequences of conviction are not. As the Court notes, see ante, at 15, petitioners' convictions, if upheld, would disqualify them from or restrict their ability to engage in a variety of professions, including medicine, athletic training, and interior design. See, e.g., Tex. Occ. Code Ann. § 164.051(a)(2)(B) (2003 Pamphlet) (physician); § 451.251 (a)(1) (athletic trainer); § 1053.252(2) (interior designer). Indeed, were petitioners to move to one of four States, their convictions would require them to register as sex offenders to local law enforcement. See, e.g., Idaho Code § 18-8304 (Cum. Supp. 2002); La. Stat. Ann. § 15:542 (West Cum. Supp. 2003); Miss. Code Ann. § 45-33-25 (West 2003); S.C. Code Ann. § 23-3-430 (West Cum. Supp. 2002); cf. ante, at 15.

And the effect of Texas' sodomy law is not just limited to the threat of prosecution or consequence of conviction. Texas' sodomy law brands all homosexuals as criminals, thereby making it more difficult for homosexuals to be treated in the same manner as everyone else. Indeed, Texas

[582]

itself has previously acknowledged the collateral effects of the law, stipulating in a prior challenge to this action that the law "legally sanctions discrimination against [homosexuals] in a variety of ways unrelated to the criminal law," including in the areas of "employment, family issues, and housing." State v. Morales, 826 S.W. 2d 201, 203 (Tex. App. 1992).

 

[AntiParty]

Bigotry is the republican core value.

I have a family full of Republicans. They don't even know they are being bigots..

They have views similar to 3rd world Countries that attack education and women's rights. For some reason they can't see the similarities (the reason is lack of education clearly).

 

[Syriusly]

Should blacks be allowed to vote? Let the states decide.

Yeah, we tried that - letting the states decide on issues of equal protection didn't work out so well.

False analogy

Bullshit reply

Kaz is absolutely correct. It is a false analogy. A lifestyle is not the legal equivalent of a race of people.

Worse, the comparison of butt sex to the harrowing struggles of Black Americans is unbelievably offensive. I'm white and I feel like kicking your ass on behalf of Blacks everywhere.

I see lots of white people acting all offended on behalf of black Americans.

But Mildred Loving isn't offended:

I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about.

She's not political and says what you want to hear, you can live with that. But if she said she's a conservative you'd be out to destroy the *****...

Wow- so you think that Mildred Loving is a '*****'.

Is it because she is black?

Or because she supports marriage equality?

Or because she married a white man?

 

[Syriusly]

Incorrect.

There were laws that controlled the lives of gay Americans as well, laws that violated their civil rights just as the rights of African-Americans were violated.

For example, in Colorado, Amendment 2 made it illegal for LGBT residents of that state to avail themselves of anti-discrimination laws. The Colorado Supreme Court struck down that measure as a violation of the 14th Amendment, whose ruling was affirmed by the US Supreme Court (Romer v. Evans).

In Texas it was illegal for consenting adult gay men to engage in sex in the privacy of their own homes. The Texas law was likewise invalidated by the Supreme Court for violating the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment (Lawrence v. Texas).

Just as African-Americans were compelled to fight for their civil rights in the courts a generation ago to strike down discriminatory, un-Constitutional measures, so too must gay Americans fight for their civil rights today; against unjust measures violating the equal protection rights of same-sex couples.

You are incorrect. The Texas statute made male sodomy a crime. It didnt matter if you were gay or straight. Similarly with all the other examples.

Negatory there big fella...

Sodomy laws in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Rights exist and are protected for the sake of the minority. The majority rarely has to have its rights protected. They can act in their own interests. But the minority is where rights are truly tested, where they actually need protecting.

The idea that our republic is broken if the rights of minorities are protected is nonsense.

The only problem is when rights have no limits and begin to crowd out democracy and the right of the people to shape the government they live under. We are becoming less a government by the people and more a government by the judges. When the pendulum swings to far to republicanism, it becomes tyranny because laws are no longer decided by the democratic process, but rather by what a judge can be convinced the law should be. That's not America.

Actually, when it comes to civil rights in this country, it's how things have been done. What's new is shit like the House ******* suing the President instead of legislating.

Rights exist and are protected for the sake of the minority. The majority rarely has to have its rights protected. They can act in their own interests. But the minority is where rights are truly tested, where they actually need protecting.

The idea that our republic is broken if the rights of minorities are protected is nonsense.

The only problem is when rights have no limits and begin to crowd out democracy and the right of the people to shape the government they live under. We are becoming less a government by the people and more a government by the judges. When the pendulum swings to far to republicanism, it becomes tyranny because laws are no longer decided by the democratic process, but rather by what a judge can be convinced the law should be. That's not America.

Actually, when it comes to civil rights in this country, it's how things have been done. What's new is shit like the House ******* suing the President instead of legislating.

Or the President suing Arizona instead of administering the law.

Oh look at you ignoring your wrongness on sodomy laws.

Oh look, me not embarassing you.

Hardwick became hostile and threatened to have officers fired for entering his home.[citation needed] Both men were placed under arrest for sodomy, which was defined in Georgia law to include both oral sex and anal sex between members of the same or opposite sex.[5] The local district attorney elected not to present the charge to the grand jury, which would have been a prerequisite to any trial or punishment for the offense. Hardwick then sued Michael Bowers, the attorney general of Georgia, in federal court for a declaration that the state's sodomy law was invalid. He charged that as an active homosexual, he was liable to eventually be prosecuted for his activities.]

You understand they were not enforced, right? The only reason they became an issue is because the fags ginned up a case they could bring. OTherwise no one cared. Fags, causing trouble and disease wherever they go.

As you know- that is just a lie.

In Houston, Texas, officers of the Harris County Police Department were dispatched to a private residence in response to a reported weapons disturbance. They entered an apartment where one of the petitioners, John Geddes Lawrence,

[563]

resided. The right of the police to enter does not seem to have been questioned. The officers observed Lawrence and another man, Tyron Garner, engaging in a sexual act. The two petitioners were arrested, held in custody over night, and charged and convicted before a Justice of the Peace.

The complaints described their crime as "deviate sexual intercourse, namely anal sex, with a member of the same sex (man)." App. to Pet. for Cert. 127a, 139a. The applicable state law is Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 21.06(a) (2003). It provides: "A person commits an offense if he engages in deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex." The statute defines "[d]eviate sexual intercourse" as follows:

 

[The Rabbi]

Oh, is that the excuse the Left uses to subvert the will of the people?

In fact, every time I hear that idiocy, "we are not a democracy, we're a republic" I want to scream because the person saying it thinks their educated when in fact they're a buffoon. We're actually both. .

Here is what the claim was

We are a democracy, if the majority speaks, they get their way. Period.

We are not that kind of democracy- we are arguably a Constitutional Democratic Republic- i.e. our entire system of government is determined by our Constitution, we use a Democratic process(but not direct Democracy) to elect our representatives.

But to say simply 'we are a Democracy' is at best incomplete and when arguing that the majority gets whatever it wants, is just totally false.

Pure democracies and pure republics are both oppressive forms of government for the reasons I gave. Right now the pendulum is swung too far toward republicanism. Wisconsin is a good example. The people voted to restrict public unions and the unions had it stopped in the courts. When we reach the point that the minority can have any law they don't like overturned in court, then democracy is frustrated, the people believing an oligarchy runs the country and their voice doesn't count. Democracy should have the final word unless there's a grievous breech in civil liberties. And some states allowing gay marriage while others don't doesn't fit that description.

Rights exist and are protected for the sake of the minority. The majority rarely has to have its rights protected. They can act in their own interests. But the minority is where rights are truly tested, where they actually need protecting.

The idea that our republic is broken if the rights of minorities are protected is nonsense.

The only problem is when rights have no limits and begin to crowd out democracy and the right of the people to shape the government they live under. We are becoming less a government by the people and more a government by the judges. When the pendulum swings to far to republicanism, it becomes tyranny because laws are no longer decided by the democratic process, but rather by what a judge can be convinced the law should be. That's not America.

Nonsense.

The people have never had the authority to enact measures repugnant to the Constitution, such as laws that deny gay Americans equal protection of the law.

The people are at liberty to enact laws as they see fit provided they do so in good faith, and where those laws comport with the Constitution and its case law.

Laws enacted to prohibit gay Americans from entering into marriage contracts are done so in bad faith, motivated solely by animus toward same-sex couples.

You keep repeating this and then cannot cite a single instance where gays cannot do something straught people can do. That's a failure.