I've responded to you six ways to Sunday. The backbone of your argument is that a right is being withheld, and that since rights were withheld from people in the past and later overturned, that the same should happen with this issue. This is not sound logic. The mere fact that rights were given to people who were oppressed in the past does not mean that gays are owed any particular priveledge. By this logic, a number of different groups should be given the rights they feel they deserve. A good example would be the Nudist Group of America, who feel they should be granted the right to be nude in public at any time.
Well ... that's not exactly what I am saying, but close. My point was that the two movements are similar, so given time, the movement will succeed.
Also, something I failed to mention last time was the fact that there are some rights that are given to some but not all based on a condition that cannot be regulated or restricted. (I'm sorry I keep bringing the Civil Rights Mvt. up again, I know that bothers you, but its the closest example for this post). The right to marry a person of a different race was not legal as a certain point, neither were many rights based on race. Its like saying you can't love this person and marry them because of how the person looks. In the case of anti- gay marriage, its like saying you can't love this person and marry them because of who the person loves. That's ridiculous to make that illegal.
Another very important thing I didn't bring up was that providing those rights to only certain people is hypocritical. If non-whites were not allowed to marry whites or vote or stand in this spot or what have you, then those strict rules should have been applied to everyone, no matter their race. In that same vein (I love that phrase) if only certain couples are not allowed to marry, then it should be disallowed for everyone, otherwise the essence of "American opportunity and freedom" is jeopardized. Its jeopardized every day when two people can't get married because of the nature of the marriage.
Why must those against gay marriage be allowed to enjoy a right while other Americans are not? The only relatively sound argument against this question is "its not American tradition," and even that argument is very weak. Because (again) interracial marriages were not "part of tradition," but magically! :shock: interracial marriages are legal now!
So this is the backbone of my post here: If we really want to fair and uphold "American freedom and fairness," then rights must always be based on an "everything or nothing" ideology. With regards to your argument about nudists, the U.S. does not give
anyone the right be nude in public (I think, am I right?), therefore we should never give that right to any specific group. If some people were allowed to be nude in public based on their nature, then we should be allowing it for everyone. My point is that we somehow grant marriage to select couples but restrict to others, what the hell is that?