MARRIAGE EQUALITY NATIONWIDE

[Thumpalumpacus]

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.

I know, and that was exactly my point, that you were drawing an inapt comparison.

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?

The fundamental right under question is not marriage itself. I've mentioned it a couple of times already and would appreciate it if you read the entirety of my post with a modicum of comprehension. The right under question in the gay-marriage discussion is the right to equal protection under the law.

Now, you're right in saying that rights can be added to or taken away from the Constitution by vote; allow me to clarify my point, which is that state or federal laws cannot be voted-upon in legislature or via referendum to remove rights that are ensconced in the Constitution. Such votes must abide by the amendment clauses, to wit, 2/3 adoption by states with a supermajority deciding. That's a far higher standard than majority vote and such is good, imo. That's what I meant when I said "rights cannot be voted on", and I'm sorry for any confusion.

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.

No one is arguing that rights are untrammeled. What is being argued is that rights are equally apportioned per the 14th Amendment's guarantee.

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?

Do you have any examples you can link to of those folks? I don't know any gays who support discrimination against their own class. Please give viable support for the contention, and I will gladly share my opinion.

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.

As above, I want to see support for this contention, because quite frankly, I don't buy it. Back your point with facts, and I will answer it.

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.

I'm speaking in terms of validity in a court of law, because rights are legal constructs. It follows that legal validity is the only one which matters. In American jurisprudence, a religious objection to a Constitutional right is not legally valid because the court is enjoined from favoring religion by the Separation clause. And the "EEEEEwwwww" objection is also legally invalid, because distaste at the expression of a right is no reason to repress the rights of another.

Personal feelings aren't a sufficient reason for abrogating the rights of others.

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.

.... in his dissenting opinion, having lost the argument with his fellow justices. He, and you, are on the wrong side of the argument.

Don't worry, no one's going to force you into a gay marriage. They're only going to ask you to mind your own business. Hopefully that shouldn't be too hard.