1.) thats not a problem its made up its 100% meaningless and bringing up religion in a discussion of legal marriage is a complete failed strawman.
Legal marriage factually has nothing to do with religion. this fact will never change
Unfortunately, religion is an issue with those who are adherents to it. And since we live in a representative democracy it becomes an issue. Wheter it is right or wrong is another issue of course.
2.) so like i said it wont be up to the states since that would violate rights
States determine on the rules of accessibility to marriage. SSM is an new idea and the Supreme Court may decide to allow the States to show a compelling State intrest on the restricting of marriage to opposite gender only. They may decide to require the States to accept it otherwise.
3.) still dodging the questions and not committing. This thread as a topic and its equal rights for gays so apply your concerns to that and give us real examples instead of dodges and meaningless generalizations.
We all know that there are Court decisions that were not based on Constitutional grounds and some which seem to be based on nothing more than what the Judge thought was right.
4.) what is " extra-constitutional reasoning" and whats an example of that pertaining to equal rights for gays
Anything reasoning not based on i the meaning of the Constitution which for the most part is written in plain language and should be easily to do so. The issue about SSM is that marriage has been between only between two people and opposite gender only and the question becomes, "Is there a compelling case for State interest to maintaining marriage as it is now or is there a compelling case that it is a violation of Rights to do the same?".
5.) see 4 what specifically would be forced on the states that applies to equal rights for gays
6.) see 5 and 4
please provide REAL answers
I am not going to go further in addressing statements that I made to others.