This is absolutely correct. The rights of the individual supercede the rights of the states in most cases. The question is one of perameters, as I stated earlier, and what your rights actually are and what they are not... because when something is an unalienable right for one individual, it has an affect on other individuals. There is some duty to ensure that the granting a new right (by interpreting the constitution, case law, or other precedent to expressly include it.. or by passing altogether new legislation) does not violate the rights of another. This is why I believe the requirements of state issued marriage licenses are better left to the states. There is no such thing as a federal marriage. The states issue the licenses and the states should determine whether they wish to offer them at all, and if so, to whom. It is not a federal issue. The fewer federal laws, the better. Kudos to Washington State. This is the way it should be done.The 14th amendment has also been ruled to incorporate the bill of rights into the states.
States rights are less important than my rights.
The "nor do you stand to lose anything" bit does concern me...
1 - For the record I'm opposed special rights for anyone.
2 - The national agenda of the homosexual lobby is less about "equal" rights for folks of different sexual orientation than then it is about securing protected status over heterosexuals ...And that amounts to "better" rights, not "equal" rights under the law. A latent effect of this is the creation of a legal environment where NO ONE IS ALLOWED to debate their social agenda ("hate speech" laws).
3 - The real problem that no one wants to talk about is the fact that the gay efficacy groups don't only want access to marriage and every other advantage of being heterosexual, they want the world to like and accept them also. Unfortunately for them, no matter how much money gays have or how good at paperwork they are, there are always going to be people (including our buddies from Islam) that disapprove of homosexuality