North Carolina: No Gays allowed

[Woodruff]

On a side note, can you show me where Jesus says that Christians should listen more to his word than the rest of the Bible?

Of course not. It seems to me that would be an egregious thing to expect. I can't even fathom why that would be expected.

Seemed to be in line with expecting someone to quote Jesus after they talk about what the Bible says.

It seems odd to expect someone who calls themselves a Christian to not want to follow Christ's own words. Give that's what the term "Christian" means and all..."Christ-like".

[patrickaa317]

I'm not throwing on it. I'm just saying that there are reasons why the entire world isn't governed by one set of moral codes; because there is no one set of absolute moral codes that must be followed. There is no absolute morality, so let's not govern as if the majority religion's morality is absolute.

I'd agree with that which is why each state should decide issues that are more important to them (or however a country's process is designed, whether states have a voice in things or if it is decided by the top level). If NC decides not to allow gay marriage, that is there prerogative.

Not necessarily. By that standard, outright discrimination against blacks (i.e. whites-only establishments) would be perfectly acceptable. There must be some overarching principles to keep the tyranny of the majority at bay. And those holidng the argument that this issue is not VERY MUCH THE SAME as the civil rights issues of the past are simply being willfully ignorant.

Here comes the talking point that we discussed earlier where people think being against gay marriage is comparable to supporting the physical abuse and treating people as animals that existed under slavery.

For someone who has a quotation about the constitution in their signature line, you'd think they'd understand the 14th amendment. Its Equal Protection Clause requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction regardless of race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, etc.

People are treated equally under the law. If a gay male choose to marry a female and they denied him the ability to do so based on his sexual preference, there would be civil rights issues. There are many laws around who can marry who. You can't marry someone if you are already married. You can't marry a relative. And in many states, you cannot marry people of the same sex. If states want to change their definition of marriage, that is their right as marriage is not something that is regulated by the federal government, nor should it be. You get marriage licenses from the same place as you get a drivers license; the state also controls the legal minimum age for driving, getting a permit, and a maximum driving age if they choose.

If states were denying the right to free speech, the right to bear arms or other constitutional rights to gay couples, then you would be correct but marriage is not a constitutional right.

[PLAYER57832]

On a side note, can you show me where Jesus says that Christians should listen more to his word than the rest of the Bible?

Of course not. It seems to me that would be an egregious thing to expect. I can't even fathom why that would be expected.

Seemed to be in line with expecting someone to quote Jesus after they talk about what the Bible says.

Jesus did, on several occasions say that he is the fulfillment of the law, but he also made clear that the way the Sadducees and Pharisees interpreted and expanded took the law and made it something it was not intended to be.

It is not that Christians ignore the law, but we have a higher law... the one Christ gave us on the Sermon on the Mount. Love Gog and "do onto others as you would have them do onto you". The first law was a guide, but it became shackles used by the elite, those who claimed to be superior in faith and knowledge. Christ turned that around and sat down with the very people reviled by those who put themselves above others. I don't know what Christ would say about homosexuals today, but I think he would sit down beside him much as he sat down beside tax collectors and others who were all reviled. Not necessarily to say that everything they did was wonderful, but to definitely say that those who were trying to hold themselves up as "better", "more lordly", "more deserving" were none such.

[patrickaa317]

On a side note, can you show me where Jesus says that Christians should listen more to his word than the rest of the Bible?

Of course not. It seems to me that would be an egregious thing to expect. I can't even fathom why that would be expected.

Seemed to be in line with expecting someone to quote Jesus after they talk about what the Bible says.

It seems odd to expect someone who calls themselves a Christian to not want to follow Christ's own words. Give that's what the term "Christian" means and all..."Christ-like".

Again, there are other parts to the Bible outside of Christ's words. If it only consisted of Christ's words, then you may be onto something.

[PLAYER57832]

Again, there are other parts to the Bible outside of Christ's words. If it only consisted of Christ's words, then you may be onto something.

Not really true, for a Christian. That is, the fundamental standard for cannonization was that the people writing be direct witnesses of Christ and be presenting his word -- as close as they could come to his word.

We have few direct quotations, true. However, the entire New Testament is believed to be "from Christ" by virtually all Christians. (there are a few groups that diverge from that standard, but they are a minority).

[Woodruff]

I'm not throwing on it. I'm just saying that there are reasons why the entire world isn't governed by one set of moral codes; because there is no one set of absolute moral codes that must be followed. There is no absolute morality, so let's not govern as if the majority religion's morality is absolute.

I'd agree with that which is why each state should decide issues that are more important to them (or however a country's process is designed, whether states have a voice in things or if it is decided by the top level). If NC decides not to allow gay marriage, that is there prerogative.

Not necessarily. By that standard, outright discrimination against blacks (i.e. whites-only establishments) would be perfectly acceptable. There must be some overarching principles to keep the tyranny of the majority at bay. And those holidng the argument that this issue is not VERY MUCH THE SAME as the civil rights issues of the past are simply being willfully ignorant.

Here comes the talking point that we discussed earlier where people think being against gay marriage is comparable to supporting the physical abuse and treating people as animals that existed under slavery.

Here comes the talking point where someone makes up a strawman, sets it on fire, and pretends it was a victory rather than a red herring.

For someone who has a quotation about the constitution in their signature line, you'd think they'd understand the 14th amendment. Its Equal Protection Clause requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction regardless of race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, etc.

I teach the Constitution, so I'm very well aware of what it says. I consider it the most important document we have in this country. I well recognize the common sense involved in the phrase "equal protection" and the bastardization that some (both conservative and liberal) try to pin on it.

People are treated equally under the law. If a gay male choose to marry a female and they denied him the ability to do so based on his sexual preference, there would be civil rights issues.

That isn't equality. That is quite similar to "separate but equal" (if not precisely so), which is a very real problem.

If states were denying the right to free speech, the right to bear arms or other constitutional rights to gay couples, then you would be correct but marriage is not a constitutional right.

Says who? Article 9 states that "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." I feel comfortable in saying that when a government applies such SIGNIFICANT BENEFITS to the marriage license as control and visitation during medical procedures and other wholly legal situations, it has absolutely become a right.

[GreecePwns]

I'm not throwing on it. I'm just saying that there are reasons why the entire world isn't governed by one set of moral codes; because there is no one set of absolute moral codes that must be followed. There is no absolute morality, so let's not govern as if the majority religion's morality is absolute.

I'd agree with that which is why each state should decide issues that are more important to them (or however a country's process is designed, whether states have a voice in things or if it is decided by the top level). If NC decides not to allow gay marriage, that is there prerogative.

Well, that was not my point. Why should we decide things at the state level? It is still the same: potential to impose morality on other citizens of the state. Same if we were to legislate at the county level, but the "market for citizens" (by this I mean that the ability for citizens to move to more preferred areas) would be more competitive, making happier citizens. Taking this further, we could legislate moral issues at the town level. Taking this even further, we could legislate issues at the individual level (aka not legislate them at all) and not impose morality on others.

The state has no reason to be involved in purely moral issues at all, other than to impose one group's morality on another. Others take it a step further and say that the State has no reason to be involved in any issues at all (in other words, there should be no State). On this, I am undecided, but certainly on moral issues no government should be involved in at all.*

*To clarify, I don't mean the 50 states, but governments in general.

[Woodruff]

I'm not throwing on it. I'm just saying that there are reasons why the entire world isn't governed by one set of moral codes; because there is no one set of absolute moral codes that must be followed. There is no absolute morality, so let's not govern as if the majority religion's morality is absolute.

I'd agree with that which is why each state should decide issues that are more important to them (or however a country's process is designed, whether states have a voice in things or if it is decided by the top level). If NC decides not to allow gay marriage, that is there prerogative.

Well, that was not my point. Why should we decide things at the state level? It is still the same: potential to impose morality on other citizens of the state. Same if we were to legislate at the county level, but the "market for citizens" (by this I mean that the ability for citizens to move to more preferred areas) would be more competitive, making happier citizens. Taking this further, we could legislate moral issues at the town level. Taking this even further, we could legislate issues at the individual level (aka not legislate them at all) and not impose morality on others.

I have yet to hear anyone successfully counter this point you're making.

[patrickaa317]

I'm not throwing on it. I'm just saying that there are reasons why the entire world isn't governed by one set of moral codes; because there is no one set of absolute moral codes that must be followed. There is no absolute morality, so let's not govern as if the majority religion's morality is absolute.

I'd agree with that which is why each state should decide issues that are more important to them (or however a country's process is designed, whether states have a voice in things or if it is decided by the top level). If NC decides not to allow gay marriage, that is there prerogative.

Not necessarily. By that standard, outright discrimination against blacks (i.e. whites-only establishments) would be perfectly acceptable. There must be some overarching principles to keep the tyranny of the majority at bay. And those holidng the argument that this issue is not VERY MUCH THE SAME as the civil rights issues of the past are simply being willfully ignorant.

Here comes the talking point that we discussed earlier where people think being against gay marriage is comparable to supporting the physical abuse and treating people as animals that existed under slavery.

Here comes the talking point where someone makes up a strawman, sets it on fire, and pretends it was a victory rather than a red herring.

For someone who has a quotation about the constitution in their signature line, you'd think they'd understand the 14th amendment. Its Equal Protection Clause requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction regardless of race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, etc.

I teach the Constitution, so I'm very well aware of what it says. I consider it the most important document we have in this country. I well recognize the common sense involved in the phrase "equal protection" and the bastardization that some (both conservative and liberal) try to pin on it.

People are treated equally under the law. If a gay male choose to marry a female and they denied him the ability to do so based on his sexual preference, there would be civil rights issues.

That isn't equality. That is quite similar to "separate but equal" (if not precisely so), which is a very real problem.

If states were denying the right to free speech, the right to bear arms or other constitutional rights to gay couples, then you would be correct but marriage is not a constitutional right.

Says who? Article 9 states that "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." I feel comfortable in saying that when a government applies such SIGNIFICANT BENEFITS to the marriage license as control and visitation during medical procedures and other wholly legal situations, it has absolutely become a right.

Perhaps the government should get out of the business of any regulations dependent on marriage and allow the citizens to decide what we want. Why can I not decide who will be making my medical decisions? Perhaps that is the issue that should be addressed instead.

And that is actually the 9th amendment, not Article 9. Hopefully that was a typo and in your teachings you are able to help your students understand the difference between the two, let me know if you do not actually understand the difference. A gay man and a straight man have the same ability to marry and would receive the same rights under marriage. Just as a black man and a white man. Or a tall man and a short man. The restriction is that many states will not give marriage licenses to two males as on of the many restrictions on marriage. Two non-US citizens cannot receive a license. You cannot receive a license if you are already in a marriage. You cannot marry a blood relative (the degree of relative varies by state).

So what limits are you ok with on marriage? Or do you support anyone can marry anyone as long as they are both consenting adults? If I love my second cousin who is also a male, should I be able to marry them or are you ok with discriminating against people in my situation? Obviously it is a non-reproductive relationship given that we are both male so genetic concerns are not of worry.

Or my friends Steve & Matt are in love and I have came to realize that I am in love with both of them and they are both in love with each other and me. Are you going to limit marriage to two people only? Who are you to say that three people cannot all love each other? Seems if you limit it to two people, the third one is being discriminated against, right? Or is there something magically special about two people that cannot be shared among three people regardless?

[Woodruff]

Perhaps the government should get out of the business of any regulations dependent on marriage

This is actually the position I favor, essentially. I have no problem with marriage being PURELY a religious ceremony that has no tie-ins to government benefits.

And that is actually the 9th amendment, not Article 9. Hopefully that was a typo and in your teachings you are able to help your students understand the difference between the two, let me know if you do not actually understand the difference.

Egad. They are actually literally called "Articles of Amendment", NOT to be confused with the original articles of the Constitution. So do you have any legitimate concerns about my teaching capability? At least learn the material if you're going to try to correct a teacher on the subject. Here's a cite for you: http://www.house.gov/house/Constitution/Amend.html

So what limits are you ok with on marriage?

Very few, if the government is going to remain in the marriage-benefit business. Consent has to be a concern, so age-limits and such need to be enforced. It seems to me to be reasonable to disallow close relatives to marry, due to the concern of the offspring, although I suppose as technology advances, this might be less of an issue. There may be one or two other situations, but they don't come to mind off the top of my head.

Or do you support anyone can marry anyone as long as they are both consenting adults? If I love my second cousin who is also a male, should I be able to marry them or are you ok with discriminating against people in my situation? Obviously it is a non-reproductive relationship given that we are both male so genetic concerns are not of worry.

I have no problem at all with that situation. Why would you presume that I would?

Or my friends Steve & Matt are in love and I have came to realize that I am in love with both of them and they are both in love with each other and me. Are you going to limit marriage to two people only? Who are you to say that three people cannot all love each other? Seems if you limit it to two people, the third one is being discriminated against, right? Or is there something magically special about two people that cannot be shared among three people regardless?

I have no problem at all with that situation. Why would you presume that I would?

[patrickaa317]

Perhaps the government should get out of the business of any regulations dependent on marriage

This is actually the position I favor, essentially. I have no problem with marriage being PURELY a religious ceremony that has no tie-ins to government benefits.

And that is actually the 9th amendment, not Article 9. Hopefully that was a typo and in your teachings you are able to help your students understand the difference between the two, let me know if you do not actually understand the difference.

Egad. They are actually literally called "Articles of Amendment", NOT to be confused with the original articles of the Constitution. So do you have any legitimate concerns about my teaching capability? At least learn the material if you're going to try to correct a teacher on the subject. Here's a cite for you: http://www.house.gov/house/Constitution/Amend.html

So what limits are you ok with on marriage?

Very few, if the government is going to remain in the marriage-benefit business. Consent has to be a concern, so age-limits and such need to be enforced. It seems to me to be reasonable to disallow close relatives to marry, due to the concern of the offspring, although I suppose as technology advances, this might be less of an issue. There may be one or two other situations, but they don't come to mind off the top of my head.

Or do you support anyone can marry anyone as long as they are both consenting adults? If I love my second cousin who is also a male, should I be able to marry them or are you ok with discriminating against people in my situation? Obviously it is a non-reproductive relationship given that we are both male so genetic concerns are not of worry.

I have no problem at all with that situation. Why would you presume that I would?

Or my friends Steve & Matt are in love and I have came to realize that I am in love with both of them and they are both in love with each other and me. Are you going to limit marriage to two people only? Who are you to say that three people cannot all love each other? Seems if you limit it to two people, the third one is being discriminated against, right? Or is there something magically special about two people that cannot be shared among three people regardless?

I have no problem at all with that situation. Why would you presume that I would?

That is perfect, you are consistent in your answers and views. Too many people want one but don't want the other and only push for gay marriage rather than getting all restrictions lifted. I would very likely join the cause if the discussion was to remove the restrictions.. I too would prefer for the gov't to get out of the whole concept but unfortunately we all know that'll never happen.

[Woodruff]

I too would prefer for the gov't to get out of the whole concept but unfortunately we all know that'll never happen.

Unfortunately, yes. It would solve so many of the REAL, LEGAL problems.

[patrickaa317]

I too would prefer for the gov't to get out of the whole concept but unfortunately we all know that'll never happen.

Unfortunately, yes. It would solve so many of the REAL, LEGAL problems.

+1 on that. As it has happened in the past, we often don't disagree as much on issues as it may seem at times.

[Woodruff]

I too would prefer for the gov't to get out of the whole concept but unfortunately we all know that'll never happen.

Unfortunately, yes. It would solve so many of the REAL, LEGAL problems.

+1 on that. As it has happened in the past, we often don't disagree as much on issues as it may seem at times.

I'm pretty much a flaming hippie liberal on social issues (not so much on fiscal ones), and I gather that you're a fairly conservative individual. But the great thing is that as long as common sense prevails and the liberals and conservatives actually try to work together, so much does fall within the grey area of "workable". Sure, there will always be specific positions where we're just not going to agree, and certainly there will be methods we won't agree upon even if we agree on a position, but compromise is not a dirty word nor a bad thing.

And that's why our Congress and politicians in general today really piss me off so much. Both sides of the aisle (with VERY limited exceptions on both sides) would rather sell us down the river (all the while blaming it on the other side, of course, to try to score political points) than work together to attempt to correct the problems we're experiencing.

[patrickaa317]

I too would prefer for the gov't to get out of the whole concept but unfortunately we all know that'll never happen.

Unfortunately, yes. It would solve so many of the REAL, LEGAL problems.

+1 on that. As it has happened in the past, we often don't disagree as much on issues as it may seem at times.

I'm pretty much a flaming hippie liberal on social issues (not so much on fiscal ones), and I gather that you're a fairly conservative individual. But the great thing is that as long as common sense prevails and the liberals and conservatives actually try to work together, so much does fall within the grey area of "workable". Sure, there will always be specific positions where we're just not going to agree, and certainly there will be methods we won't agree upon even if we agree on a position, but compromise is not a dirty word nor a bad thing.

And that's why our Congress and politicians in general today really piss me off so much. Both sides of the aisle (with VERY limited exceptions on both sides) would rather sell us down the river (all the while blaming it on the other side, of course, to try to score political points) than work together to attempt to correct the problems we're experiencing.

I agree. I am typically fairly conservative though more libertarianism is starting to shine through me as I get older.

And I agree with you on the frustration of congress playing complete politics but at the same time I also wish they wouldn't do as much as they often do, sometimes stalemates and deadlocks prevent them from screwing up more and more things. I do simply hate them standing for or against something just because of party lines. I will always have more respect for a conservative voting with the liberals on an occasional issue than a conservative who always takes commands from the party on how to vote even though that side of the issue may be more in line with my views.

Just remember, the opposite of congress is progress.

[comic boy]

For what its worth I pretty much agree as well , my problem is with not allowing civil partnerships rather than so called 'gay marriage' . A gay couple in a civil partnership should recieve exactly the same benefits as those enjoyed by a hetereosexual couple, a pair of spinster sisters living together for example should also have these same benefits, anything short of this equates to discrimination.
That is not to say that legislators should drive a horse and cart through centuries of tradition and religious conviction , if a couple ( of whatever sex ) fail to meet a particular criteria then they should accept the consequences . In short civil partnerships absolutely , traditional wedding ceremonies only in circumstances when all parties are in agreement.
This will not suit those who simply think homosexuality is an abomination , nor will it suit those who promote gay 'rights' rather than equality for all , doesn't matter , the only important issues are discrimination and fairness.

[Woodruff]

For what its worth I pretty much agree as well , my problem is with not allowing civil partnerships rather than so called 'gay marriage' . A gay couple in a civil partnership should recieve exactly the same benefits as those enjoyed by a hetereosexual couple, a pair of spinster sisters living together for example should also have these same benefits, anything short of this equates to discrimination.
That is not to say that legislators should drive a horse and cart through centuries of tradition and religious conviction , if a couple ( of whatever sex ) fail to meet a particular criteria then they should accept the consequences . In short civil partnerships absolutely , traditional wedding ceremonies only in circumstances when all parties are in agreement.
This will not suit those who simply think homosexuality is an abomination , nor will it suit those who promote gay 'rights' rather than equality for all , doesn't matter , the only important issues are discrimination and fairness.

Agreed. The "Justice of the Peace Option". That is very much an acceptable alternative for me as well.

[Phatscotty]

I agree too

[BigBallinStalin]

I'm not throwing on it. I'm just saying that there are reasons why the entire world isn't governed by one set of moral codes; because there is no one set of absolute moral codes that must be followed. There is no absolute morality, so let's not govern as if the majority religion's morality is absolute.

I'd agree with that which is why each state should decide issues that are more important to them (or however a country's process is designed, whether states have a voice in things or if it is decided by the top level). If NC decides not to allow gay marriage, that is there prerogative.

Well, that was not my point. Why should we decide things at the state level? It is still the same: potential to impose morality on other citizens of the state. Same if we were to legislate at the county level, but the "market for citizens" (by this I mean that the ability for citizens to move to more preferred areas) would be more competitive, making happier citizens. Taking this further, we could legislate moral issues at the town level. Taking this even further, we could legislate issues at the individual level (aka not legislate them at all) and not impose morality on others.

I have yet to hear anyone successfully counter this point you're making.

GP is wrong because a strong, central government requires such power, so that its politicians can dangle such relatively trivial issues in front of the voters' faces every 4 years or so. These red herrings are much better than talking about deficit spending, wars, the state-supported over-leveraging of the economy, the Great Decline of the US "Empire," etc.

All in all, I totes agree with GP, but I'd bring the moral decision-making to a neighborhood level.

[Phatscotty]

I agree with BBS that this is another wedge issue, as most social issues are.

The counter to the point Greece makes "Why should we decide things a state level?" The answer is the question is being asked perversely. We have already decided to decide things at the state level, a long long time ago....It is our tradition and our heritage.

We aren't "The country of America" we are "the United States of America".

[GreecePwns]

So there are no merits to it? None at all? Good to know. The only reason things are decided at the state level is because some men have decided 200+ years ago that we should.

[Woodruff]

So there are no merits to it? None at all? Good to know. The only reason things are decided at the state level is because some men have decided 200+ years ago that we should.

Phatscotty will be along any moment to post a picture of the United States flag.

[Phatscotty]

So there are no merits to it? None at all? Good to know. The only reason things are decided at the state level is because some men have decided 200+ years ago that we should.

Well, you wouldn't want to ignore ALL the infrastructure that has been built based on that decision, would you? A decision that was voted on unanimously which recognized state independence? Or should we redefine independence as well? That is our founding, and our principles. It's what our people believe in and have for centuries. Every court case, every law, every bit of progress, has been built on the original model. It's not perfect, but I think we have done and are doing a pretty darn good job....Societies base law and other things according to and facilitative to the norm, not the exception.

Unless....you are literally arguing to abolish the USA as we know it.....

Just acknowledge reality dude. States make their own laws in many areas, and I simply argue that citizens having a say in making those laws is a much better system which protects Liberty. I have never heard anyone argue for the need to abolish governors and state legislatures and mayors and city councils though.

You have to realize you are arguing for more power to the central government, and attacking state sovereignty. That is the issue, and in fact it has little to do with gay marriage at all.

[PLAYER57832]

So there are no merits to it? None at all? Good to know. The only reason things are decided at the state level is because some men have decided 200+ years ago that we should.

Well, you wouldn't want to ignore ALL the infrastructure that has been built based on that decision, would you? A decision that was voted on unanimously which recognized state independence? Or should we redefine independence as well? That is our founding, and our principles. It's what our people believe in and have for centuries. Every court case, every law, every bit of progress, has been built on the original model. It's not perfect, but I think we have done and are doing a pretty darn good job....Societies base law and other things according to and facilitative to the norm, not the exception.

Unless....you are literally arguing to abolish the USA as we know it.....

Just acknowledge reality dude. States make their own laws in many areas, and I simply argue that citizens having a say in making those laws is a much better system which protects Liberty. I have never heard anyone argue for the need to abolish governors and state legislatures and mayors and city councils though.

You have to realize you are arguing for more power to the central government, and attacking state sovereignty. That is the issue, and in fact it has little to do with gay marriage at all.

You may have READ the constitution, but you surely don't understand it.. nor the context into which it was laid.

We have a nation in order to protect individual liberties. That is not done by some amorphous structure or simply the will and whims of people. It is a framework of laws.

Our first tries were not the great glory to which you claim. Women, minorities, even men without propery had few rights at first. But, the laws were there. The LAWS prevailed and so things were moved to give more and more people the freedom promised.. albiet in a human and thereby imperfect way.

Why on Earth would someone claiming to hold liberty and freedom in the highest esteem ever see justice in denying one group of people the ability to marry as they will solely becuase it offends some people's purely religious ideas?

[Woodruff]

Well, you wouldn't want to ignore ALL the infrastructure that has been built based on that decision, would you? A decision that was voted on unanimously which recognized state independence? Or should we redefine independence as well? That is our founding, and our principles. It's what our people believe in and have for centuries. Every court case, every law, every bit of progress, has been built on the original model. It's not perfect, but I think we have done and are doing a pretty darn good job....Societies base law and other things according to and facilitative to the norm, not the exception.
Unless....you are literally arguing to abolish the USA as we know it.....
Just acknowledge reality dude. States make their own laws in many areas, and I simply argue that citizens having a say in making those laws is a much better system which protects Liberty. I have never heard anyone argue for the need to abolish governors and state legislatures and mayors and city councils though.
You have to realize you are arguing for more power to the central government, and attacking state sovereignty. That is the issue, and in fact it has little to do with gay marriage at all.

You may have READ the constitution, but you surely don't understand it.. nor the context into which it was laid.
We have a nation in order to protect individual liberties. That is not done by some amorphous structure or simply the will and whims of people. It is a framework of laws.
Our first tries were not the great glory to which you claim. Women, minorities, even men without propery had few rights at first. But, the laws were there. The LAWS prevailed and so things were moved to give more and more people the freedom promised.. albiet in a human and thereby imperfect way.
Why on Earth would someone claiming to hold liberty and freedom in the highest esteem ever see justice in denying one group of people the ability to marry as they will solely becuase it offends some people's purely religious ideas?

Ooooh! Oooh! <raising hand> I know, I know...can I answer?