No, it's not.Is homosexuality now a race?
It doesn't have to be though. The Equal Protection Clause doesn't cover just race.
Additionally, there was a time when Race wasn't viewed as protected under the constitution either.
Furthermore, as I already noted, "traditional" marriage can be argued as being unconstitutional of the grounds of Gender Discrimination.
Under our current laws a Man can legally enter into a contract with people a woman can't, and vise versa.
You could theoritically guess, but no not really. You can't look at me and tell me exactly what age I am, but age discrimination is protected constitutionally to a certian degree. You can't look at me and tell me what religion I am just by looking at me. Yet that is protected just as equally as race under the law.Can I tell you are homosexual just by looking at you?
Absolutely not. It's perfectly okay for the Government to discriminate against people as long as it meets the necessary criteria established through case law as it relates to the Equal Protection Clause. If the state can justify before the courts that the discrimination fits the required level of necessitiy and importance as it relates to the classification in question, then they can discrminate as they see fit. If they can't make said argument convincingly, then they can't discriminate in that fashion.Is discrimination in any form unconstitutional?
Nope, you don't. You'll never see me arguing about the legalities of marriage based on "love". I think that's far and away one of the weakest arguments and one that invites the most obvious attempts to circumvent the argument.Do you even have to love someone to marry them?
To me it's been a simple matter of constitutional standards. The laws we have on the books are not substantly related to serving an important state interest as it relates to their discrimination on the basis of gender, and thus are not constitutional.