DJ,
You assert that your position is supported by the Constitution, and, when I ask you to back it up with some kind of evidence, you reply that, "You don't need me to find you the bits that say that all are equal under the law." Further, you state that, "Whether or not the founders really MEANT it is subject to question, but that's what they wrote and that's what the courts are likely to do."
Well, it is true that we, as individuals are all equal under the law, but that is not to say that certain behaviors may not be proscribed by law. Further, researching into the intent of the framers is an integral part of interpreting the Constitution. Again I ask if you have anything to offer that would indicate that the framers meant to recognize any right of gays to engage in same-sex marriages. I reiterate that nothing they wrote into the Bill of Rights indicates any intent to recognize same. And, I believe that one could research into their opinions, writings and documents until Hades develops icicles and you will not find any support for a right to same-sex marriage.
You continue to assert that laws that proscribe marriages under certain conditions in some states and not others somehow disprove the application of the "full faith and credit" clause. Once again, such discrepancies relate to issues other than gender. There is absolutely no record of any state refusing to recognize the marriage of two consenting adults of different genders unless there is something in the particular case that would render one of the parties not fit to enter into such a contract. For example, it might be required, in the case in which one of the parties has been adjudged mentally incompetent that the marriage be not recognized.
I am well aware of the nature of judicial opinion, however a law not deemed unconstitutional is, in effect, cast in stone until such time as it is ruled unconstitutional or amended or rescinded by act of Congress.
As to whether or not the federal government "ain't got the power to dictate state marriage law," that has yet to be determined. The issue, moreover is whether or not the feds have the power to enact federal law with regard to the rights of citizens. I would argue that it does. In fact, in many areas of life in the states, federal law governs our activities.
I think your crystal ball is a mite cloudy. Once again, I do not advocate outlawing any sexual behavior between two consenting adults, and the Supreme Court agreed - that is not the issue. The Texas sodomy law case has little or no bearing on this issue as that case revolves around homosexual behavior and not the legality of homosexual marriage.
I have my doubts also as to whether the Supreme Court will want to involve itself in this issue. I have the feeling that the justices have gone as far as they are willing to go with homosexual issues for the present.
At this point, I must say that, as it is highly unlikely that either of us will put a dent into the other's view, it would be appropriate for us to agree to disagree. It's been interesting vying with you, but I'm sure that a good many of the members here are completely bored by the issue and would like to see us move on and allow this thread to die a merciful death.
Sayonara!
