MARRIAGE EQUALITY NATIONWIDE

[Ace]

A single issue is not the same as a single characteristic. Consent is something that can be changed, and not inherent to the person; they can change their minds so that what was good lovin' one day is rape the next week.

Homosexuality, on the other hand, is not something amenable to change; it is a fixed character of a person's sexual psychology. To argue that they should be treated differently for that reason doesn't hold water, to me.

I was not arguing the distinction of the two,  topic issue vs. characteristic of homosexuality. I was saying that to use or the give of only a single reason to something should or should not be is what I was talking about.

Indeed, rights are not subject to popular vote, and that's a good thing.

But constitutional right's have been put to a vote. Even now they still are.

Now comes the question of what it a constitutional right? Right now the right to adoption is not a constitutional right, marital benefits are not a constitutional right. power of attorney or truest is not a  constitutional right, (in fact it can be given to anyone married or not married to that person). To have a home is not a right, and to have a job is not a constitutional right, especially in "right to work states"

And contrary to popular belief marriage is not a constitutional right. Right now it still is under contract law which is not read under, applied to/with, or listed under the Fundamental Right's Doctrine.
If it is a fundamental right, which mean that the fundamental right can not be taken way or prevented. A marriage contract, like any contract can be broken/taken way, ( annulment and divorces). So how is it a fundamental right if it already violates the two basic criteria of what is defined as a fundamental right?

A marriage can be prevented if one is not of the legal age, (even consent can be denied if parent does not agree with their young teen marring), right state of mind, in some states pass a medical check up, are biologically related, have to get a state licenses. And, (unless this has change I am not sure), if you have AIDS.

In my opinion folks who would [b]deny gay persons the same right to marriage as straight folks are bigots.

Good, then hopefully you will not evade this question as many have. I ask and say again does this also account for those in the homosexual community that do not agree with same sex marriage also? Are the just as guilty of denying their own community member's their rights for opposing same sex marriage?

They can't present any valid objection to it; the right to equal treatment is Constitutional law; and the two reasons they oppose it are either "Eeeeewwww" or "God says don't do it", neither of which have any legal gravity whatsoever.

Many gays who do not agree with same sex marriage have given their reason as to why but, I don't think you will care for them because the are in disagreement with you and the hole issue at hand.

Also,  you do know that there are many people who disagree with homosexuality that have nothing to do with religious reason or because the of the law. Many just don't agree with it.  

The issue of provided a "valid" argument is actually more of one of true opinion;  What is considered a valid reason? What may be valid to one may not be to the other. What is reasonable? What you may think is not a reasonable argument may be one to another.
So to argue that valid argument has not been given or has been given can not fully be the criteria for "pure prof" of the topic because it is susceptible to the realm of opinion.

As for "legal gravity"? nether does the Supreme Courts ruling of Obergefell v. Hodges. Which is not my opinion but what was stated by the Chef Justices Roberts himself.