NationStates Jolt Archive

Before I say what I want to say, let me tell you about myself so there will be no speculation later. I am a religious person. However, I do not let my religion effect my political beliefs because I am an American, and the American Supreme Court has held a long-standing tradition of seperating church and state.

Several states in the USA have decided to ban gay marriage. I am going to argue that they cannot legally do that. According to the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution, no state may create or enforce laws which take away the priveleges or immunities of US citizens. Marriage is a privelege, and being gay does not change your citizenship. With that in mind, it is against the Constitution and therefore illegal to ban gay marriage in the USA.

I have to wonder if the states' gay marriage bans will hold up in court. No federal amendment banning gay marriage is going to pass anytime soon. Bush tried it and failed. It's going to be hard-pressed to pass again, especially if the "no civil unions either" provision is left in.

I have to wonder if the states' gay marriage bans will hold up in court. No federal amendment banning gay marriage is going to pass anytime soon. Bush tried it and failed. It's going to be hard-pressed to pass again, especially if the "no civil unions either" provision is left in.
Even if an amendment passes, the states can't enforce laws that come from it because of the clause I paraphrased. And I would hope that the FBI has better things to do than break up gay weddings...

Even if an amendment passes, the states can't enforce laws that come from it because of the clause I paraphrased. And I would hope that the FBI has better things to do than break up gay weddings...

You might be surprised at that...and if the Supreme Court upholds the bans, then they are in effect and enforceable.

Before I say what I want to say, let me tell you about myself so there will be no speculation later. I am a religious person. However, I do not let my religion effect my political beliefs because I am an American, and the American Supreme Court has held a long-standing tradition of seperating church and state.

Several states in the USA have decided to ban gay marriage. I am going to argue that they cannot legally do that. According to the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution, no state may create or enforce laws which take away the priveleges or immunities of US citizens. Marriage is a privelege, and being gay does not change your citizenship. With that in mind, it is against the Constitution and therefore illegal to ban gay marriage in the USA.

Priviledge and Immunties doesn't work that way. That's why in the tewnties there was all those problems with some states not recognizing other states divorces. I can't be bother to look up the case, but I'm sure someone else here remembers it.

Short and tall of it no-state has to recognize another states marrige, unless such refusal is based upon racial animus (Loving v. Virginia I think).

I just thought of something else. If a marriage amendment passes, it will be the second amendment in US History to limit the rights of the public. The first was prohibition, and we all know how well that worked...

Merely asserting that marriage is a privillege of US citizenship does not make it so, you need that step. It is not the priviledges of US citizens that are protected, but the privilledges of US citizenship which are protected. Thus you have to show that this is not a state priviledge but a national priviledge, confered upon the individual by the federal government (a rather daunting task given that the federal government is not very big on issuing marriage liscenses to begin with), and comes from being a citizen of the union of states instead of being from being a citizen of a state.

Merely asserting that marriage is a privillege of US citizenship does not make it so, you need that step. It is not the priviledges of US citizens that are protected, but the privilledges of US citizenship which are protected. Thus you have to show that this is not a state priviledge but a national priviledge, confered upon the individual by the federal government (a rather daunting task given that the federal government is not very big on issuing marriage liscenses to begin with), and comes from being a citizen of the union of states instead of being from being a citizen of a state.

Slaughter House jurisprudence, right?

Priviledge and Immunties doesn't work that way. That's why in the tewnties there was all those problems with some states not recognizing other states divorces. I can't be bother to look up the case, but I'm sure someone else here remembers it.

Short and tall of it no-state has to recognize another states marrige, unless such refusal is based upon racial animus (Loving v. Virginia I think).

Actually, I'm pretty sure they do. Marriage is a legally-binding contract, so unless the legal system has wandered a long, long way away from the Constitution states should have to recognize marriages, no matter what state the marriage happens in. Full Faith and Credit, I believe is the clause I'm looking for.

EDIT: Yup, Full Faith and Credit. Article 4, Section 1. Unfortunately, it's a little vague. See for yourself:
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Actually, I'm pretty sure they do. Marriage is a legally-binding contract, so unless the legal system has wandered a long, long way away from the Constitution states should have to recognize marriages, no matter what state the marriage happens in. Full Faith and Credit, I believe is the clause I'm looking for.


Marriage is not a legally binding contract, but rather a legal status. And look at what Squi posted, that explains why states can, indeed, refuse to recognize. Especially if such recognition is explicitly against state policy.

So no, they don't have to recognize another states marriage. I'm just to lazy to look the case law up, but FYI I brought your very point up in a Domestic Relations Law class and it got shot down pretty damn fast - and convincingly.

It's nice to live in a total fantasy world, isn't it?

According to the Supreme Court, we don't even have the RIGHT to vote or expect that our vote will be counted.

Look at the Patriot Act: that has severely curbed our civil freedoms, but it's still a law.

The Supreme Court is made up of 7 Republicans and 2 Democrats. Republicans, by the very nature of their party, believe in controlling social order and leaving economics and business alone. Of course they're going to uphold this ban!

The religious right is in charge now...there's no end to the crap they can pull.

Marriage is not a legally binding contract, but rather a legal status. And look at what Squi posted, that explains why states can, indeed, refuse to recognize. Especially if such recognition is explicitly against state policy.

So no, they don't have to recognize another states marriage. I'm just to lazy to look the case law up, but FYI I brought your very point up in a Domestic Relations Law class and it got shot down pretty damn fast - and convincingly.
That's discouraging.
However, I'd say that marriage being a legal status should be good enough. You are granted priveleges concerning your spouse, similar to a contract. And, when you are married by a justice of the peace, don't you get a marriage contract? If I'm wrong, you'll have to forgive me; I'm just a naive college student.
As for Squi's argument, I believe that through Full Faith and Credit priveleges granted by states become priveleges granted by the nation. Am I correct?

1. Bush will try the federal gay marriage ban again, he has a larger majority in congress to work with.

2. If he gets it past congress, It will pass the states with no problem IMHO (come on, the 11 states that banned it did so by a 65 -35 vote margin on average at least)

3. Sodomy and gay marriage are not the same thing. It is possible to ban gay marriage without banning sodomy between consenting adults. To equate them is to fall into a logical fallacy trap.

4. Several states in the USA have decided to ban gay marriage. I am going to argue that they cannot legally do that. According to the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution, no state may create or enforce laws which take away the priveleges or immunities of US citizens. Marriage is a privelege, and being gay does not change your citizenship. With that in mind, it is against the Constitution and therefore illegal to ban gay marriage in the USA.

sorry, I disagree, as a RL lawyer I think I have a right to do so. Marriage is a privilege granted by the states, not a right protected from federal infringement under the U.S. Constitution. As a privilege granted by the states under their constitutions, they have the right to define it as they see fit under state law; they just can't grant it to one person and deny it to another based on suspect classes such as race, gender, ethnicity, religion, prior conditions of servitude, etc. HOWEVER, please note that sexual preference IS NOT a protected class. (i.e. so you're gay, that doesn't make you a "protected class" of citizens under the U.S. constitution like differences in race, gender, religion, etc. might make you) Likewise, though, the federal government can define it as they see fit for the application of federal law. It would be easy, for example, for Oklahoma to say that they will not recognize marriage between two people of the same sex as having any legal effect whereas the the feds. could say that under the IRS rules, same sex couples who have "declared" themselves to be "married" are to get the same tax benefits as those couples recognized as being "married" under OK state law.

Just my $0.02 worth.

Please note as you consider MHO that I have attempted to diligently use logic and my knowledge of the law. Anyone who thinks they can discrern my personal opinion, pro or con, is full of shit.

Even if an amendment passes, the states can't enforce laws that come from it because of the clause I paraphrased. And I would hope that the FBI has better things to do than break up gay weddings...

Actually it can happen. I don't remember where I read it(it was awhile ago) but a man was convicted for 40 years for sodomy on his wife.

Like I said. I can't remember the source so take of it what you will.....

I must say, I am impressed with the resonses so far. I was expecting people to come in with religious reasons, completely ignoring the fact that the US has historically seperated church and state.
In response to Mauiwowee, I wonder why homosexuals are not one of the protected groups. They have been prejudiced against at least as much as the other groups. I suppose the only difference is that in this case they are still largely prejudiced against...

That's discouraging.
However, I'd say that marriage being a legal status should be good enough. You are granted priveleges concerning your spouse, similar to a contract. And, when you are married by a justice of the peace, don't you get a marriage contract? If I'm wrong, you'll have to forgive me; I'm just a naive college student.
As for Squi's argument, I believe that through Full Faith and Credit priveleges granted by states become priveleges granted by the nation. Am I correct?

You get a marriage license, not a contract. You can get married by contract - in some states - but it's still a legal status. In other words the contract is an agreement to get married, not the marriage itself . That's why you cannot completely tailor every aspect of the marriage with a pre-nup. For example, a pre-nup that stated that adultery would not be grounds for divorvce probably would not be held as valid. Thus marriage is a set of unwaivable core obligations, making it a status.

Think of it like adopting a child, that is not a contractual relationship either.

Squi's argument comes out of the Slaughter house cases - I think - I haven't read them for years (and was not really paying that much attention when I did).

I suppose the best way to think of it is that New York does not have to recognize your Penn. concealed carry permit for a handgun. And nor does the constitution compel it.

(But honestly it's been a long time since I had to read any of the case law so if there is a different take I'd be glad to hear it.)

Slaughter House jurisprudence, right?The reasoning may be from SlaughterHouse, it's been so long ago that I studied it and the principal is so well established that I really am not sure, I only remember Slaughterhouse for the Due Process part, and while SlaughterHouse has been partially overturned as to the nature of due process, this portion is still considered valid. The reasoning was used as recently as Lawrence, the trick is to expand the defintion of "due process", not to expand "priviledge"; if the original argument had been based on "due process" instead of "priviledges and immunities" this would be moot.

I wonder why homosexuals are not one of the protected groups. They have been prejudiced against at least as much as the other groups. I suppose the only difference is that in this case they are still largely prejudiced against...


See Carolene Products, footnote 4.

Marriage license ,marriage license . I knew it sounded wrong but couldn't figure out what it should be. Yes, that does make my argument a lot weaker. Still, I will persevere. I need to get my arguments good and strong; the gay marriage campaign will be my second political upheaval.

...who am I kidding? I have no standing, I'm straight. All I can do is whine about the injustice of it all while I sit on my moral high-horse.

The reasoning may be from SlaughterHouse, it's been so long ago that I studied it and the principal is so well established that I really am not sure, I only remember Slaughterhouse for the Due Process part, and while SlaughterHouse has been partially overturned as to the nature of due process, this portion is still considered valid. The reasoning was used as recently as Lawrence, the trick is to expand the defintion of "due process", not to expand "priviledge"; if the original argument had been based on "due process" instead of "priviledges and immunities" this would be moot.

Procedural v. Substantive due process - ? That's the trick I think.

I think that the reasoning is Slaughter House tho. I'm just to lazy to read it. (It was boring enough the first time).

See Carolene Products, footnote 4.
Regretfully, I have no clue where to find Carolene Products. Politics is just a hobby of mine; I'm actually a music major.

Marriage is not a legally binding contract, but rather a legal status. And look at what Squi posted, that explains why states can, indeed, refuse to recognize. Especially if such recognition is explicitly against state policy.

So no, they don't have to recognize another states marriage. I'm just to lazy to look the case law up, but FYI I brought your very point up in a Domestic Relations Law class and it got shot down pretty damn fast - and convincingly.

Your statement brings up a subtle, but legally very significant difference. being married is status. The ability to get married is a privilege. States may grant or deny the privilege of getting married as they see fit (for the time being anyway). Loving v. Virginia just held that a state could not prohibit, based on race, the privilege of getting married.

Again, sexual preference is NOT a protected status under the 14th Amendment whereas gender is.

Procedural v. Substantive due process - ? That's the trick I think.

I think that the reasoning is Slaughter House tho. I'm just to lazy to read it. (It was boring enough the first time).It probably was from slaughter House, but DuePprocess is the way to argue that the states have no right to ban Homosexual marriage. Since granting a marriage license is a goverrnment function, the government must demonstrate a compelling state interest in regulating the manner in which it grants marriage licenses.

Regretfully, I have no clue where to find Carolene Products. Politics is just a hobby of mine; I'm actually a music major.try findlaw.com. too lazy to look up a link but they have a fairly easily searchable case index. USSC decision.

It is unlikely the Supreme Court will uphold gay marriage bans, however it is alos unlikely they will legalise them. The passing of gay marriage bans has placed The Courts between A rock and a hard place. The traditional policy of the Supreme Court was to acknowledge civil commitments as if they were marriages, however the Courts aired on the side of caution and avoided either condoning or baning gay marriage.

Regretfully, I have no clue where to find Carolene Products. Politics is just a hobby of mine; I'm actually a music major.


[Footnote 4 ] There may be narrower scope for operation of the presumption of constitutionality when legislation appears on its face to be within a specific prohibition of the Constitution, such as those of the first ten Amendments, which are deemed equally specific when held to be embraced within the Fourteenth. See Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359, 369 , 370 S., 51 S.Ct. 532, 535, 536, 73 A.L.R. 1484; Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U.S. 444 , 58 S.Ct. 666, decided March 28, 1938.

It is unnecessary to consider now whether legislation which restricts those political processes which can ordinarily be expected to bring about repeal of undesirable legislation, is to be subjected to more exacting judicial scrutiny under the general prohibitions of the Fourteenth Amendment than are most other types of legislation. On restrictions upon the right to vote, see Nixon v. Herndon, 273 U.S. 536 , 47 S.Ct. 446; Nixon v. Condon, 286 U.S. 73 , 52 S.Ct. 484, 88 A.L. R. 458; on restraints upon the dissemination of information, see Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 , 713-714, 718-720, 722, 51 S.Ct. 625, 630, 632, 633; Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233 , 56 S.Ct. 444; Lovell v. Griffin, supra; on interferences with political organizations, see Stromberg v. California, supra, 283 U.S. 359, 369 , 51 S.Ct. 532, 535, 73 A.L.R. 1484; Fiske v. Kansas, 274 U.S. 380 , 47 S.Ct. 655;

Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 , 373-378, 47 S.Ct. 641, 647, 649; Herndon v. Lowry, 301 U.S. 242 , 57 S.Ct. 732; and see Holmes, J., in Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652, 673 , 45 S.Ct. 625; as to prohibition of peaceable assembly, see De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353, 365 , 57 S.Ct. 255, 260.

Nor need we enquire whether similar considerations enter into the review of statutes directed at particular religious, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 , 45 S.Ct. 571, 39 A.L.R. 468, or national, Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 , 43 S.Ct. 625, 29 A.L.R. 1446; Bartels v. Iowa, 262 U.S. 404 , 43 S.Ct. 628; Farrington v. Tokushige, 273 U.S. 284 , 47 S.Ct. 406, or racial minorities. Nixon v. Herndon, supra; Nixon v. Condon, supra; whether prejudice against discrete and insular minorities may be a special condition, which tends seriously to curtail the operation of those political processes ordinarily to be relied upon to protect minorities, and which may call for a correspondingly more searching judicial inquiry . Compare McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 428; South Carolina State Highway Department v. Barnwell Bros., 303 U.S. 177 , 58 S.Ct. 510, decided February 14, 1938, note 2, and cases cited.

All dicta tho. ;)

Thanks, DeaconDave. It looks like I picked the right major, though; I'd rather not have to dig through piles of case law before I made a decision.

Before I say what I want to say, let me tell you about myself so there will be no speculation later. I am a religious person. However, I do not let my religion effect my political beliefs because I am an American, and the American Supreme Court has held a long-standing tradition of seperating church and state.

Several states in the USA have decided to ban gay marriage. I am going to argue that they cannot legally do that. According to the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution, no state may create or enforce laws which take away the priveleges or immunities of US citizens. Marriage is a privelege, and being gay does not change your citizenship. With that in mind, it is against the Constitution and therefore illegal to ban gay marriage in the USA.

Frankly, I think the sodomy laws are, for the most part, silly as hell. They're unenforceable. I can't remember a time when I've ever seen anyone having anal sex in front of me in public. They don't. It's done behind closed doors, and if someone objects, then fine, have a law to protect them against rape, not sodomy. Don't mix the two up. It's just another law on the books that can't be enforced, takes up space, and wastes time and thought.

Your statement brings up a subtle, but legally very significant difference. being married is status. The ability to get married is a privilege. States may grant or deny the privilege of getting married as they see fit (for the time being anyway). Loving v. Virginia just held that a state could not prohibit, based on race, the privilege of getting married.

Again, sexual preference is NOT a protected status under the 14th Amendment whereas gender is.

I was only citing Loving, because I new that was an exception to the States discretion in recognizing other State's marriages.

I fixed the name of the thread. Now let's see if things get more heated...

EDIT: Nevermind, changing the name of the first post doesn't change the name of the thread...

Here is a relatively decent piece that discusses and explains to some extent some issues brought up here: Equal Protection (http://www.pejmanesque.com/archives/006050.html)

Why gays aren't entitled to say they deserved "protected status" under the 14th A. is a question I can't answer, though I would argue it is because they have yet to convince a court that like gender and race they are immutiable characteristics. I acknowledge though that this argument has some problems when it comes to the question of "why then is religion a 'suspect' class at that is clearly not 'immutable.' I can only say that falls back on the 1st Amendment as a protected right.

I hope this makes sense. I will also agree that so far the posts in this thread are impressive for their lack of flaming and their measure of reasonableness.

I was only citing Loving, because I new that was an exception to the States discretion in recognizing other State's marriages.

I understand that and that is no problem. You brought it up appropriately as something to consider.

Has anyone here read lawrence v. texas.

Does it have any bearing on this. I've not read the decision myself.

Well, I guess the heated discussion I was hoping for is a bust. While I have you intellectual types here, though, perhaps you could help me with something. I'm writing an argument paper for Eng 105, and I'm arguing that the US should switch from a bipartisan system to a multipartisan system (like what the UK has). Do you have any advice on arguments I could use?

Has anyone here read lawrence v. texas.

Does it have any bearing on this. I've not read the decision myself.

Its been a few months, but as I recall the case rested on the "right to privacy" that was espoused in Griswold v. Connecticut and it found that a state could not criminalize sodomy between consenting adults in a situation (primarily their own home) that was "private." Just like Roe v. Wade which also built off of the Griswold case said you cannot criminalize abortion during that period of time when the decision to have an abortion is a "private" decsion between a woman and her physician. At the point in either decision when it can reasonably be claimed that a state's right to protect the health, welfare and benefit of it's citizens becomes an issue that reasonably outweighs the reasonable privacy right protected by the decisions, then the state may intrude upon the privacy. As you can see, it is all grey. Where does a state's right to "reasonably" intrude for "reasonable" protection infringe upon a "reasonable" right?

lawerence doesn't have much really to do with this, what you want to consider instead is Romer (v Evans?) from arround 1995. Lawerence revolved more along the privacy rights of individuals having sex, Romer considered the limits of permissible state restrictions on homosexuals. edit: as persons instead of their sexual conduct

Well, I guess the heated discussion I was hoping for is a bust. While I have you intellectual types here, though, perhaps you could help me with something. I'm writing an argument paper for Eng 105, and I'm arguing that the US should switch from a bipartisan system to a multipartisan system (like what the UK has). Do you have any advice on arguments I could use?

Well, its a little off topic but I'd be in favor of the idea. The primary argument I'd use is that it gives the people more choices in the election process. I'd love to see a really strong libertarian candidate for any office, state or federal, take on the "machine politic" and whip its ass. Same for the Greens or a flat out "independant."

Well, I guess the heated discussion I was hoping for is a bust. While I have you intellectual types here, though, perhaps you could help me with something. I'm writing an argument paper for Eng 105, and I'm arguing that the US should switch from a bipartisan system to a multipartisan system (like what the UK has). Do you have any advice on arguments I could use?

Well the problem is your thread title. It says sodomy laws: unconsitutional. And they sort of are - so that's why no one is coming in here yelling.

Try "gay marriage: offence to the constitution" that should shake it up a bit. Then again maybe it's just beaten to death.

Also the US is a multi-party system. Just no-one really votes for the little parties. Vermont has some independants I think.

Well the problem is your thread title. It says sodomy laws: unconsitutional. And they sort of are - so that's why no one is coming in here yelling.

Try "gay marriage: offence to the constitution" that should shake it up a bit. Then again maybe it's just beaten to death.

Also the US is a multi-party system. Just no-one really votes for the little parties. Vermont has some independants I think.
Actually, because winners are decided on plurality, the third parties don't have enough power to truly be considered parties in my eyes. Technically it's a multipartisan system, but in practice it's bipartisan. Third parties can only effect the election by threatening to steal votes from the major parties. I want to change that.

Like I said, I never read lawrence, so I didn't really know the basis for the ruling, and I never go by newspapers for these things.

I was just wondering if it had any good dicta - or otherwise - about the importance of human relationships as a human good or something like that.

Actually, because winners are decided on plurality, the third parties don't have enough power to truly be considered parties in my eyes. Technically it's a multipartisan system, but in practice it's bipartisan. Third parties can only effect the election by threatening to steal votes from the major parties. I want to change that.

Hmm. England has the same rule though, and they get elected there.

Hmm. England has the same rule though, and they get elected there.
Unless I was misinformed, England operates on Majority, meaning you need 50% of the vote + 1 vote to get elected, rather than here in America where you only need more than the other guy. The Majority part means that third parties stealing votes becomes a much bigger deal.

Damn, 43 civil posts about elections and gay rights, it can be done. Mods I hope you've noticed this. :)

Unless I was misinformed, England operates on Majority, meaning you need 50% of the vote + 1 vote to get elected, rather than here in America where you only need more than the other guy. The Majority part means that third parties stealing votes becomes a much bigger deal.

Actually, I think whoever is leader of the majority party is asked by the queen to become PM and form a government. The only hitch being is that if they do not have the majority of the seats in parliament (the commons) then the majority party will have great difficulty passing legislation and usually falls to a no-confidence vote pretty quickly. It's called a "hung" parliament or something.

My larger point was, is that the english system still produces third party MPs, despite having similar ballot rules. (1 candidate, 1 vote)

Damn, 43 civil posts about elections and gay rights, it can be done. Mods I hope you've noticed this. :)
It's my fault; I made the mistake of naming the thread with something not many vocally opinionated people would bother with. If I could figure out how to change the name, I would. I want to see blood!! :mp5: :mp5: :sniper:
:D

Damn, 43 civil posts about elections and gay rights, it can be done. Mods I hope you've noticed this. :)

I know, we must be doing it wrong.

I know, we must be doing it wrong.

LOL :D

Unless I was misinformed, England operates on Majority, meaning you need 50% of the vote + 1 vote to get elected, rather than here in America where you only need more than the other guy. The Majority part means that third parties stealing votes becomes a much bigger deal.Actually to be elected you need the plurality, like in the US. The majority only applies to forming a government, in Parliment a majority must consent to the government. The Scotts and Northern Irish have some oddball systems though.

Actually to be elected you need the plurality, like in the US. The majority only applies to forming a government, in Parliment a majority must consent to the government. The Scotts and Northern Irish have some oddball systems though.
Okay, so I had better not try to site England in my argument.

It's my fault; I made the mistake of naming the thread with something not many vocally opinionated people would bother with. If I could figure out how to change the name, I would. I want to see blood!! :mp5: :mp5: :sniper:
:D

I told you. Try "Gay Marriage: And offence to the US Constitution.

Bound to bring them in.

And I think some european countries have a system called proportional representation, which almost guarantees a voice for third parties.

I need to stop debating late into the night; it's 12:30 and I haven't showered yet. Looks like I'll have to wake up early tomorrow to do that. I should sleep now, I have a 9:30 class tomorrow and I need sleep. Goodnight all, and many thanks!

Before I say what I want to say, let me tell you about myself so there will be no speculation later. I am a religious person. However, I do not let my religion effect my political beliefs because I am an American, and the American Supreme Court has held a long-standing tradition of seperating church and state.

Several states in the USA have decided to ban gay marriage. I am going to argue that they cannot legally do that. According to the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution, no state may create or enforce laws which take away the priveleges or immunities of US citizens. Marriage is a privelege, and being gay does not change your citizenship. With that in mind, it is against the Constitution and therefore illegal to ban gay marriage in the USA.
no argument here. though i think all of America's gay community should be feeling very proud right now: their private sex lives were so important to the hicks in the Red states that they determined the outcome of this election. by having gay sex, which the Bible clearly tells us is really really icky, the gays grossed out so many ignorant Bible-thumpers that it won the election for George Bush.

so remember, GOP, you all should really be thanking those disgusting fags for your win this November :).