Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[Ace]

Hmmm Ok many topics are given. So let try these ones and see what history waits the outcome.

I'd be happy to talk about "social wrongs" alleged by those who oppose gay marriage (or, as I like to call it, "marriage"),

So, even as we speak many of those “alleged social wrongs” are showing their head and stating to push for the same recognition as the gay community. What then? Will you even acknowledge it to be such or refuse to see any connection and just wail to the heavens how it is slippery slope?

They are using the same argument to fix what they consider a social wrong.  Rather than first asking what social wrong was caused to them by the law, which marriage will grant?  Exclusion from privileges is not a social wrong; if it were it would be unethical to prohibit 12 year olds from driving or 10 year olds from drinking.

Some here have said having to pretend to be straight when they were gay was a wrong they had to endure and in the same breath have no problem saying those who do not agree must pretend they agree or should be punished by the law for discrimination, hate speech, and so forth.  If not being allowed to express your honest opinion and person is indeed a harm that was suffered by 10% of the population before, than forcing marriages in states where democratic definitions were put in place and condemning anyone who does not agree with those marriages or does not at minimum pretend to agree with those marriages is equally a harm impacting nearly 50% of the people in the country.  Saying a person may believe what they want but may not exhibit that belief in public is no different than saying one may be as gay as they like so long as they do not appear so in public; you know…being in the closet.

There may be several who want to say turnabout is fair play.  Let them suffer what we have suffered or that someone has to suffer since the sides hold opposing views.  Now if we say let them suffer until they conform and that is right, how may we say they were wrong in doing the same thing before and we are now right for doing it to them?  Were they not just trying to get conformity?  If we one group or another must suffer due to an inability to reconcile the positions should we not say than let us minimize the suffering?  Isn’t 10% suffering in the closet far less than 50%?

to try to convince those of us who are glad that we no longer prohibit marriage's legal protections to gay couples as if they are second-class citizens.

Marriage does not give rights, (“marriage rights” can and are able to be given with will in testaments, power of attorney, co-signing ownership). It gives benefits.

Marriage also does not provide any security or protection at law which was not effectuated by the legal devices already mentioned

Marriage, takes way second-class citizenship? So all people have to do is just get marred to be treated as a first class citizen and with full equally?  People who are not married are now second class citizens?  Of the numerous citizens still treated as second class in both the law and in our society. Is the solution to this marriage?

-single people: are not given the same “dignity and security” that marriage now gives according to the ruling and are not even given the privileges or benefits as marriage couples.
- Cohabitation/or common law (marriage) couples: have lost many of their couples benefits and insurances when same sex marriage became legal.
- Signal parents: whom actual have children are not granted many of the benefits that married couples are when children are in the picture.
- African American, Hispanic, and people of Middle East decent continue to be treated like second class citizens.  They are being killed and imprisoned for no other reason but their skin color and ethnicity.
And for those who are  married and still treated  second class, can it not then be right to reason that marriage is not the answers to equality?  

I am also fairly well-versed in Constitutional law at the federal-versus-state level, particularly with regard to the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment,.

Hmm, in all of your studding of the law did you ever see this mythical fundamental right exist for same sex marriage or marriage in general?

What legal precedent was set leading to a fundamental right to same sex marriage?

Did the states bans satisfy rational basis scrutiny as they were required to do?

Is the ruling supported by the substantive fundamental rights test established in Washington v. Glucksberg?

Was the ruling even decided by the equal protection clause?

How knowledgeable are you on the due process clause?

Did you actually read the full ruling?

As stated by Chief Justice John Roberts at the end of his dissent:
“If you are among the many Americans--of whatever sexual orientation--who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision.  Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal.  Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner.  Celebrate the availability of new benefits.  But do not celebrate the Constitution.  It had nothing to do with it. I respectfully dissent.”