The act of homosexual sex is, forcing states to recognize homosexual unions as a legal marriage is not in my opinion.They're unconstiuttional BECAUSE homosexuality is protected under teh EPC.
I believe that the states right to define and issue marriage licenses is above the right of homosexuals to have their sexuality recognized as a legal marriage with marriage terminology.This is correct, they are protected at a lower level than those things. That doesn't mean they're not protected, it just means that the state has a lower burden to justify their discrimination....but they still need to meet that burden and "Because people want it" doesn't meet it.
We had racial inequality until an amendment was added. Under the current Constitution I just don't see it legally protecting homosexual marriages and forcing that upon the states that issue licenses/certificates and that they adopt such a definition.It's as "clearly outlined" as any of the other things you listed. Why is an amendment needed to do it for sexuality but not for Race or Gender?
I personally think that there isn't a pressing logical issue that prevents SSM. But I also believe that it is within the due process of the law for a state to define marriage as one man one woman.And I'm arguing that they should rule otherwise because there has been no demonstrated IMPORTANT state interest that is substantially served by denying them based on gender. Can you offer one?
The fact still remains that the ruling was based on the fact that MA has a right to define marriage and the federal government does not have the authority to limit that. It may not have been tried on the grounds of the EPC, but it was tried on the grounds of state rights and on those grounds it is completely legal for a state to define marriage.And I can see where they come to that conclussion, in part because that was the argument and directoin put forth to the court and because it was not challenging based on the notion that there was an EPC violation.
The constitution clearly discusses racial equality with Amendment 15. The Constitution clearly discusses sex/gender in Amendment 19. There is no Amendment extending rights on the basis of sexuality. One may argue that sexuality can tie into gender, but as far as it being clearly mentioned it isn't there. Unlike race and gender, sexuality is not clearly mentioned which is what I'm getting at. You may be arguing SSM as a Federal Constitutional right based on gender, but to state that it is in violation due to sexuality (homosexuality in specific) I just don't think it's there.And this continues to be my confusion and my assertion that your argument is illogical because the constitution doesn't "Clearly state" that race and gender can't be discriminated against either and yet you ROUTINELY point to those as being legitimate. Those have been defined in the same manner sexual orientation has bee ndefined as applying to the EPC....through judicial preccedence.
It's not unconstitutional to define marriage as one man one woman. An interest does not need to be stated in amendments to state Constitutions doing such. What important state interests are there in outlawing polygamy, incest, making bestiality illegal or other such things? It is within due process of the law for people in a state to define the terms for marriage that exclude polygamy and homosexuality. Regardless, important state interest is subjective to individual beliefs. I support SSM at the state level, I see no logical reason to ban it so I can't produce an important state interest from my own beliefs. However, I also think it's overstepping federal powers under the current Constitution to void a states right to define marriage as one man one woman and fully respect the right of states to do so or to legalize SSM and polygamy.Correect. That legal sexual inequality in this country meets the required standard under the EPC. I invite you again....provide an important State Interest (Let me pull out a common one, "raising a family", that is an example of a state interest. "People wanting it" is not a state interest) that you believe is substantially served by discriminating against gender in marriage.
Incorrect. I believe rulings on DOMA and the upheld belief that states may define marriage as one man one woman overpowers rulings striking down sodomy laws. By clearly stating something, the Constitution directly has amendments for race and gender, not sexuality. As I've said, the Constitution has causes directly and clearly discussing racial and gender rights, there aren't ones for sexuality. You may be arguing based on gender, and I disagree that it is a violation of rights based on gender to say that a man can be a wife/bride or that a woman can be a husband/groom or to force all marriage definitions to state that a union is between two consenting adults regardless of sex. I don't think the legal definition of marriage that we have held in this country up until a few states changed that years ago is unconstitutional and unlawfully discriminating against gender rights. The judicial fact is that the Federal government does not have the authority to tell a state how to define marriage and the current definitions are lawful until overturned by the SCOTUS if that indeed happens. I personally think for that to happen that an amendment should be added to the constitution that repeals a states right to define marriages and clarifies that it is gender discrimination or discrimination based on sexuality for a state to do as such and the fact that that has been upheld in nearly all states (with the exception of California where SSM had been previously allowed).That's fine. Accept the fact then that you're picking and choosing which pieces of judicial precedence you wish to accept and making up things to justify it to yourself such as stating what the constitution "Clearly" states.