When has marriage ever been the societal norm as what marriage is? Tell me. Otherwise you're just tossing out insults and trying to minimize facts you cannot refute.
It's only irrelevant now because you don't want to address it. What gives the special right to change what the definition of marriage is over any other sexual group? Not all traditions are meant to be broken. Marriage as a traditional institution serves a specific purpose. It's like a club. Nobody is barred from joining the club as long as you follow the rules. I can't marry a man right now. Why should gay people have that special right? Especially when other sexual interest groups want to marry men too? Why are only gays allowed to marry men?Which is irrelevant to now. You don't seemingly understand or know what "precedence" means. 13 years ago many of the portinos of the PATRIOT Act that have been upheld would've been inconcievable to be implimented or viewed as constitutional. Twenty years ago the notion of needing to worry about charging underage kids with child pornography due to sending their boyfriend a naked picture was inconcievable due to the logistics of how it could be done. 65 years ago the notion of a woman serving in the military was blasphemous. 50 years ago the thought of a black and white couple marrying in the south was inconcievable. What is "inconcievable" in the past is not a basis for a strong and useful argument on how to function within the present.
The founders conceived of National Security as a technical necessity for the survival of the country. That's why National Defense is specifically mentioned in the Constitution. Show me gay marriage is mentioned in the Constitution. I'd love to see it. Your attempt at morally equating the two is silly.The founders never would've concieved of gay marriage. They also never would've concieved of an Air Force, Cyber Security, and the world wide web. This is why the Founders laid forth a framework and foundation for the country to function on going forward...because htere's an understanding that they could not hope to know what 100 or 200 or 500 years in the future would bring, so they sought to create a document that would hopefully be both limiting in terms of the governments scope while adaptable to new realities.
Where is marriage in the Constitution. Show me. When did a Founding Father ever state the definition of what marriage is, as it's been known since the beginning of mankind, ever be subject to change because gay people wanted to change it? When did Jefferson ever claim only gays should be given the special right to change the definition of marriage over other sexual interest groups?Now, do I disagree with the notion of Marriage being some absolute constitutional right? Yes. HOWEVER, unlike some other conservatives, I understand as well that the SCOTUS was established by that very same constitution. As such, I generally function from a mindset of reality. The reality is that until such time that the decision regarding marriage as a federall protected right is overturned, that it IS a right protected by the constitution. And as such, rulings and laws in the future need to adhere to that decision. To not do so it completely invalidate our legal system and the constitution itself as it basically proclaims that the system in place should be replaced with egotistical anarchy.
Ok you agree the states should decide. Great. Now we're getting somewhere.Would my preference be to over turn the precedence that marriage is a federally protected right, allowing individual states to govern it largely because it's simply yet another thing I don't believe the federal government needs to be involved in? Absolutely. But, until that happens, then subsiquent law relating to it MUST adhere to that ruling because THAT'S how it constitutionally works.
it's not a tinfoil hat CT. Your name calling now. That doesn't interest me. Cultural Marxism is very real. The first thing Marxists do is attack traditions and culture. All gay marriage really is, is a product of Critical Theory. Gay marriage goes against Natural Law. It has no social or economic purpose. It's a cultural push firmly grounded in political correctness. The US Culture is dominated by Cultural Marxism.As to your paranoid conspiracy theorist tin foil rant at the end, save your breath typing that **** to me because I'm not going to gift you the benefit of any further response to such trash.
Gays do not have a right to marry someone of the same sex over any other sexual interest group. Marriage has always meant man + woman. Gays don't get the right to change it to man + ? or woman + ? at the exclusion of others. Let everyone vote at the state level to decide what marriage is.