NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm just trying to understand this point of view, and yes, argue mine a tad. But whatever I say, try to understand, I'm just trying to understand this.

This really just applies to the states, because for some insane reason (I bet it's TV) I'm more into American politics than anything other country.

I know there are loads of people who are anti-gay rights. I understand it, okay maybe not but I won't bring it up, but I don't actually understand how you can deny homosexuals the right to get married.

Doesn't the constitution say that everyone was created equal and therefore, deserve the same rights?

So wouldn't deny someone to get married because of their sexual preferances be unconstitutional?

I'm just trying to understand this point of view, and yes, argue mine a tad. But whatever I say, try to understand, I'm just trying to understand this.

This really just applies to the states, because for some insane reason (I bet it's TV) I'm more into American politics than anything other country.

I know there are loads of people who are anti-gay rights. I understand it, okay maybe not but I won't bring it up, but I don't actually understand how you can deny homosexuals the right to get married.

Doesn't the constitution say that everyone was created equal and therefore, deserve the same rights?

So wouldn't deny someone to get married because of their sexual preferances be unconstitutional?


I think it's because it is not spelled out in the Constitution that its left to the states. Other than that I have no clue.

I'm just trying to understand this point of view, and yes, argue mine a tad. But whatever I say, try to understand, I'm just trying to understand this.

This really just applies to the states, because for some insane reason (I bet it's TV) I'm more into American politics than anything other country.

I know there are loads of people who are anti-gay rights. I understand it, okay maybe not but I won't bring it up, but I don't actually understand how you can deny homosexuals the right to get married.

Doesn't the constitution say that everyone was created equal and therefore, deserve the same rights?

So wouldn't deny someone to get married because of their sexual preferances be unconstitutional?
The general response to this is "Well, they already have equal rights. A homosexual can go out and marry someone of the opposite sex just as well as a heterosexual." I have often seen this taken off on a tangent to say something like "Therefore, giving gays the right to marry would be giving them special rights."

I think the correct response to the first bit is "Well, heterosexuals have the right to marry a consenting adult with whom they are in love, while homosexuals do not," and the answer to the tangent is "Well, gay marriage isn't a special right, it is an equal one, because as in your argument about how marriage is equal, a straight man could perfectly well go out and marry another man if gay marriage was legalized."

I'm just trying to understand this point of view, and yes, argue mine a tad. But whatever I say, try to understand, I'm just trying to understand this.

This really just applies to the states, because for some insane reason (I bet it's TV) I'm more into American politics than anything other country.

I know there are loads of people who are anti-gay rights. I understand it, okay maybe not but I won't bring it up, but I don't actually understand how you can deny homosexuals the right to get married.

Doesn't the constitution say that everyone was created equal and therefore, deserve the same rights?

So wouldn't deny someone to get married because of their sexual preferances be unconstitutional?


Actually, the consitution doesn't say everyone is created equal. That's the Declaration of Independence and not a legally binding document. The 14th amendment does offer equal protection under the law, but as someone else stated, a homosexual has the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex as a straight person. The states can change their minds on that, unless the federal government amends the constitution to make sure they can't.

There is no understanding homophobia. Some people just think they have the right to rule others.

I personally see no logical explanation WHY we can't allow homosexuals to get married. However, there are people who DO, and they bring up issues such as:

-State's rights (Gay marriage is an issue to be decided by individual states)
-Religion (stating that marriage is a religious institution, which can bar members)
-Foundations of the United States ("Christian Nation")
-Ruling of the majority (Not everyone wants it)

And of course the most simplistic:

-Homosexuality is a sin

As you can see, the majority of the arguments against gay marriage have their foundations in religion. And this is why we will never have concensus.

ya but most people term anything they dont like as a sin

Because the EXTREME (keep this word in mind: EXTREME) right wing christian fringe people are ignorant and narrow minded.

Because the EXTREME (keep this word in mind: EXTREME) right wing christian fringe people are ignorant and narrow minded.

Oh good argument! So origional too. Now guess what that statement says about you and the left.

i may be wrong here, but i get the impression this is where the whole argument about whether people are 'born' gay, or 'choose' to be gay....

guess if you stick to the viewpoint that it is a choice they willingly made, then its easier to demonize them/deny rights.

dunno if thats the real reason or not...

Liverbreath']Oh good argument! So origional too. Now guess what that statement says about you and the left.

Hey just because the argument is not original, doesn't mean its any less valid.

He did use the word EXTREME, and he was merely stating his opinion. Everyones allowed to.

-Religion (stating that marriage is a religious institution, which can bar members)

I hate this argument, because it denies religions that have no problem with same-sex marriage the right to practice their religion. Good examples include Unitarianism, Buddhism (IIRC), The Society of Friends (IIRC), the UCC (resolution passed 4 to 1), and multiple others.

but I don't actually understand how you can deny homosexuals the right to get married.

Don't worry ... it won't last long. There's a large group in the US who believe that if they make it illegal, gays will simply vanish. That same group also seems to believe that if it were legal, hetero marriages would crumble. That same group also seems to believe marriage to be a religious (read: Christian) institution, even though it's a State issued marriage license on their wall and not a church issued one.

Delusional bunch. They'll be silenced soon enough.

even though it's a State issued marriage license on their wall and not a church issued one.

Delusional bunch. They'll be silenced soon enough.

I'm a Christian, I don't hang my marriage license on my wall. The Church gave us a nice little remembrence thing though. ;)

I'm not in favor or against marriage for gays. If they want to, fine. One question though: if two guys get hitched is an antique butter dish appropriate as a bridal gift? :p

BTW From the election results, it appears that those against gay marriage might not be silenced so soon. Do you have some insider info?

I'm a Christian, I don't hang my marriage license on my wall. The Church gave us a nice little remembrence thing though. ;)

Well, yeah, but that one doesn't really count. The State only recognizes its own license for tax purposes, power of attourney, hospital visitation, probate, etc.

I'm not in favor or against marriage for gays. If they want to, fine. One question though: if two guys get hitched is an antique butter dish appropriate as a bridal gift? :p

Depends on the couple, I suppose. It's the thought that counts, though. :D

BTW From the election results, it appears that those against gay marriage might not be silenced so soon. Do you have some insider info?

Insider info? Not really ... but I've seen in all manner of history books what happens to tyrrants. One of the founding basises of this nation was Civil Disobedience. We were born in a revolution. A revolution that stripped away all vestiges of someone else ruling our private lives with an iron fist. Bush and company is trying to reverse our revolution.

Someone, somewhere, will make a declaration of independence and the whole ball will get rolling all over again. At heart, most Americans are libertarian. It's just a matter of time before people start to realise that they, too, are slowly having their personal freedoms eaten away. You almost never see it coming. It's too easy to say, "Well, since I'm not Gay (or Black, or a Jew, or a Woman ... pick your oppressed) this won't affect me."

It's entirely a religious argument. Those in power are whoring themselves out to those with a tyrannical view of God. (Because they acctually vote.) Their political base believes that marrige isn't a legal construct of man but a covenant before God that man has attached legal meaning to. The also believe that God doesn't like homosexuals so God wouldn't like gay marrige, and anything else they do with this issue is to justify or realize that belief.

I consider myself to be amoung the Christian Right, however i am on the left wing of said group so my thoughts and ideas tend to be much more moderate. As for the topic at hand, it has become a big deal because gays have brought it to the government thus the topic is now up for national or international debate. I personally have no problems with gay people, Jesus loves them just the same as he loves straight people. I also believe that gays should have the ability to be bound under contract to each other and enable them to receive the benifits much as a straight married couple would. My issue with Gay marriage is the fact that churches are preforming these marriages. Homosexuality is a sin (and it is a sin not just someting that we don't like Leviticus 18:22 "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.") I Do not understand how a church can base a contract with God, such as marriage, that has its basis in sin. That is my issue with gay marriage, not that thay should not have rights, they should have the right to be bound to each other, but the the Church has no right to make that contract with God. Mind you these are Christian/Judeo views, i cannot speak for other religions and thier views on Homosexuality.

The whole issue is about religion, whether or not christianity realizes it, it is responsible for this issue. The Book says that gays are bad (at least the way that they're interpreting it anyway) and blah blah blah. I'm not against any religion, but, whether or not gays can marry should not be decided by people outside of their community, because it's an opinion, not a law. An opinion based on faith, without proof. I'm not for or against gay marriage, but I have no intention of making my opinions into laws either.

Homosexuality is a sin (and it is a sin not just someting that we don't like Leviticus 18:22 "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.")

True, the Bible does state that, but it also states many other apparently arbitrary rules in Leviticus which are no longer upheld by society at large. Why prioritise the edict against homosexuality at the expense of other instructions therein?

EDIT: surely, as written, Leviticus only presents us with an edict against the practice of male homosexuality, but is strangely silent on lesbian issues, no?

The issue of marriage is not addressed in the constitution, gay or straight. The largest voting block in the USA right now is against homosexual marriage. A small percentage of that group, yet still a large number of voters, would criminalize all behavior not to their liking. They are the true homophobes.

For some reason they fear that allowing homosexuals to marry will entice all their children, and even themselves, to become homosexual. Like the argument that if you don't believe in the Judeo/Christian God you will not have the ability to live morally and will immediately set about raping and killing others.

This will have to be addressed on the federal level, similar to voting rights for women and blacks in the US, or the states will pander to a popular majority. Many of the fundamentalists do not see homosexuals as capable of being saved and therefore not worthy of rights nor dignity.

I'm just trying to understand this point of view, and yes, argue mine a tad. But whatever I say, try to understand, I'm just trying to understand this.

This really just applies to the states, because for some insane reason (I bet it's TV) I'm more into American politics than anything other country.

I know there are loads of people who are anti-gay rights. I understand it, okay maybe not but I won't bring it up, but I don't actually understand how you can deny homosexuals the right to get married.

Doesn't the constitution say that everyone was created equal and therefore, deserve the same rights?

So wouldn't deny someone to get married because of their sexual preferances be unconstitutional?
By defenition, marriage is between a man and a woman. It's impossible for a gay couple to get married. They can have their own ceremony to celebrate a long-lasting romantic relationship and commitment to one another if they want, but it cannot be marriage, they cannot call it marriage, and the church will certainly have nothing to do with it.

Hey just because the argument is not original, doesn't mean its any less valid.

He did use the word EXTREME, and he was merely stating his opinion. Everyones allowed to.

He stated a blatant and sterotyping falsehood as a fact. It is no more valid than saying all far left liberals living in Mass. are traitors because Kennedy and Kerry are. Is it valid because I said it?
It's one thing to support those with a similar belief system, but to do so when someone is so patently offensive reflects very poorly of the group as a whole.

Actually there is a place in the old testament (i cannot remember where exactly if i should find it i will let eveyone know) where God condemns both male and female homosexuality. However, wether or not God approves of it or not is not the issue, I inserted that verse to show that homosexuality was and is a sin (not something we just don't like). Also, I would like to say that I am not prioritizing this one law over any other law that is written in the Old Testament. However, all of these laws are no longer binding (speaking from a Christian standpoint) because the Mesiah has come a died for us so that we may not be subject to the many laws that are found in the old Testament. That is why I said before that i have no problem with gays, "Jesus loves them the same as he loves staights" Their sin is covered just as mine is. My beef with the gay marriage is the fact that Churches are debating wether or not they should allow gays to be married (by that i mean under contract with God).

By defenition, marriage is between a man and a woman. It's impossible for a gay couple to get married. They can have their own ceremony to celebrate a long-lasting romantic relationship and commitment to one another if they want, but it cannot be marriage, they cannot call it marriage, and the church will certainly have nothing to do with it.
Yet plenty of churches are indeed up for it. Perhaps not your own, but surely there is freedom of religion in the US, right?

Personally I just feel that people should be left alone to do what they want. Do not get me wrong, I am in no way gay, but I would not like someone to tell me that I can't get married some day just because I am Mexican, or because I like dogs and not cats.

People should just let others live... and worry about their own business, not others.

There's a large group in if it were legal, hetero marriages would crumble. That same group also seems to believe marriage to be a religious (read: Christian) institution, even though it's a State issued marriage license on their wall and not a church issued one.

Delusional bunch. They'll be silenced soon enough.[/QUOTE]
Who is delusional here anyway? Doesn't the Religious Conservative movement rule the U.S. Government now? I think they are merely exercising their power now to see how far they can go. They would , i believe, make the practice of homosexuality a crime if they could.Far from being silenced power will make them... well you know what power does!!

cuz they're like, repressed gays?

cuz they're like, repressed gays?

That is rarely true. This isn't the playground where you'd pick on a girl cause you secretly liked her.

Doesn't the constitution say that everyone was created equal and therefore, deserve the same rights?

Thats why Bush is changing the constitution

Homosexuality is still illegal in the US military, and being caught in a consensual homosexual act is grounds for court martial. And unlike the stupid laws still on the books that are unenforced (like oral sex is illegal in CA), this one is actually used.

The current American political machine terrifies me. For a country that's supposed to be so big on individual rights and freedoms, your government sure seems intent on taking them away!

Don't worry ... it won't last long. There's a large group in the US who believe that if they make it illegal, gays will simply vanish. That same group also seems to believe that if it were legal, hetero marriages would crumble. That same group also seems to believe marriage to be a religious (read: Christian) institution, even though it's a State issued marriage license on their wall and not a church issued one.

Delusional bunch. They'll be silenced soon enough.

Nobody really has to "make" it illegal, since it already is.

The reason that people don't want gay marriage is that they believe it means the government has implied that it's ok to be gay. I don't have a problem with that obviously, but a lot of people do. The whole "destroying marriage" thing is bogus and makes no sense, and no one that I have heard it from has been able to defend it.

Homosexuality is a sin (and it is a sin not just someting that we don't like Leviticus 18:22 "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.")

Yes, I know that one too (in fact, to up you one, Leviticus 20:13 clearly states that two men who have sex must die for their sin.) And, to extrapolate on the argument of selective use of the Bible, here are a few examples:
One cannot use clothes made from more than one material, such as polyester-cotton compounds (Leviticus 19:19.) One cannot plant more than one type of seed in the field, effectively a ban on serial crops (also Leviticus 19:19.) One cannot eat one's steak rare, or indeed any steak at all if it is not Hallal-meat (Leviticus 19:26.) And finally, one cannot cut the hair one the sides of the head, meaning that Christian men, and especially priests who wish to wear their hair short must make provisions for the sides, affecting the same haircut as orthodox Jews (Leviticus 19:27) These examples are all happily ignored, while Leviticus 18:22 is waved in the faces of gay couples who wish to marry in a Christian church.

The above is to my mind the final stone on the tomb of leviticus as an argument against gay marriage. It may be right that homosexuality is a sin, but if Christians aren't even going to make the slightest effort on the other commandments in Leviticus, they have forfeited the right to use 18:22.

However, the argument I'd like to propose is the following:

Certain moderate Jewish researchers, as well as Christian ones, have studies Hebrew versions of the Bible, as well as the corresponding Jewish texts and have concluded that the ban on homosexuality may possibly be a clerical error. They suggest that the verses are mistranslated and should be references to pedophilia, or possibly zoophilia (I forget which.) Thus the entire foundation of Christian opposition may be nothing but a clerical error.

However, I shall not proclaim this to be the truth, as I cannot for the life of me recall the source of this peculiar notion.

Either way, there is no particularly good biblical argument against homosexuality or gay marriage.

And I must say I liked this thread. For once, this forum has come together and actually discussed something without getting into a flaming row. Amazing!

For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father also will forgive you; but if you do not forgive men their trespasses neither will your father forgive your trespasses. Matthew 6:14-15

Judge not, that you be not judged. Matthew 7:1

So are Christians more into Jesus, or some old tribal rules written down a thousand years before he was born?

By defenition, marriage is between a man and a woman. It's impossible for a gay couple to get married. They can have their own ceremony to celebrate a long-lasting romantic relationship and commitment to one another if they want, but it cannot be marriage, they cannot call it marriage, and the church will certainly have nothing to do with it.
Marriage as a legal institution is seperate from marriage as a religious institution. In fact, several religious institutions already perform marriages so that's not even an issue, and many people currently get married without the involvement of the church at all (when I marry I will most likely not have any religious ceremony). The question here is the granting of equal civil rights to gay couples that straight couples have.

I'm just trying to understand this point of view, and yes, argue mine a tad. But whatever I say, try to understand, I'm just trying to understand this.

This really just applies to the states, because for some insane reason (I bet it's TV) I'm more into American politics than anything other country.

I know there are loads of people who are anti-gay rights. I understand it, okay maybe not but I won't bring it up, but I don't actually understand how you can deny homosexuals the right to get married.

Doesn't the constitution say that everyone was created equal and therefore, deserve the same rights?

So wouldn't deny someone to get married because of their sexual preferances be unconstitutional?

The Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA is a federal law of the United States passed by Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996. The law provides:

First, it allows each state (or similar political division in the United States) to recognize or deny any marriage-like relationship between persons of the same sex which has been recognized in another state.
Second, it explicitly recognizes for purposes of federal law that marriage is "a legal union of one man and one woman as husband and wife" and by stating that spouse "refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."

Gay people will take this up with the courts. It will be over-turned, see: The Full Faith and Credit clause. Once it is over-turned all states will be required to recognize Mass. married homosexuals. Homosexuals will flock there to be married because of the newly required recognition. Eventually legislation will be made in the form of an amendment that states something along the lines of "no man, woman, child shall be barred from marrying someone of the same sex." It just takes time.

Until the DOMA is overturned you'll just have to let the system work the way it's intended to and forget about all of the bitching that's going on. :)

I've also seen people say that legalizing homosexual marriage will lead to marriages between people and animals or people and children.

It's a crackpot argument, children and animals can't consent, but I've seen it used.

...and being caught in a consensual homosexual act is grounds for court martial. And unlike the stupid laws still on the books that are unenforced (like oral sex is illegal in CA), this one is actually used.
No, it's not. The ruling of declared these types of laws unconstitutional.

As for the constitutionally of gay marriage -- marriage is not a basic right guaranteed by the Constitution. The entire practice of marriage is a matter only for the States to rule on, including the gender, race, and number of participants involved in it. If a state law/constitutional clause outlaws homosexual marriages, that is the right of the state, as it is the right of the elected Representatives and the constituents of the state to make the institution open to diverse types of marriage.

My stance: civil unions that guarantee the full rights and benefits of marriage should be extended to all homosexual couples seeking legal partnership. Seems simple enough to me.

Andapaula, it hasn't been repealed as of June 18, 2005 (http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_mili.htm), although there is a lawsuit in progress. It was in use as recently as November 2002 (http://www.q.co.za/2001/2002/11/18-usmilitary.html), and according to 2004 articles, COs can require a discharge if "sexual behavior around the workplace is not found objectionable by their fellow servicemen" which leaves a rather open door. Heterosexual soldiers sleeping with a variety of women have not been targeted under this legislation, but homosexual soldiers with only one partner have. Even kissing is considered objectionable behaviour which can force a discharge.

Marriage is a civil right granted by the government, not through the church. I was married in a civil ceremony, and I still have a marriage license on my wall. Everyone deserves the same rights; I'm not better than anyone else. If I have the right to marry the person that I love, so should everyone else.

Giving homosexuals civil ceremony rights would fall under the equal but different category. They deserve the SAME rights as everyone else.

The comment you quoted from entirely discussed the military, which is why I misunderstood you. I was not speaking of civilian sodomy at all.

In the case of separate but equal, there are no funding correlations to debate over. Instead, it's still going to come down to the fact that civil partnership agreements are perceived as less important by society.

People deserve fully equal rights. Homosexuals aren't asking for anything that we don't get. By segregating their rights with a different name, we aren't giving them the same rights we have.

The only real arguments against calling it marriage are religious based- otherwise, why the heck would you care if they have a domestic partnership agreement or a marriage? They deserve a marriage, with all the rights, benefits, and responsibilities.

Civil unions haven't passed the test of time like marriage legislation has. The rights and responsibilities of marriage have been clearly spelled out and generally agreed upon for decades. Civil unions are still on shaky legal ground as precedents are set. I still don't see how they can be considered "truly" equal, even if you discount the psychosocial aspect of calling their commitments a different name.

What this whole issue boils down to, is that there will always be a group of people seeking to deny equal rights to other people because they don't like the idea, for whatever reason or none at all.

My issue with Gay marriage is the fact that churches are preforming these marriages. Homosexuality is a sin (and it is a sin not just someting that we don't like Leviticus 18:22 "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.") I Do not understand how a church can base a contract with God, such as marriage, that has its basis in sin. That is my issue with gay marriage, not that thay should not have rights, they should have the right to be bound to each other, but the the Church has no right to make that contract with God. Mind you these are Christian/Judeo views, i cannot speak for other religions and thier views on Homosexuality.

Do you also have a problem with churches that allow a woman to speak in church?

Corinthians14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
Corinthians 14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.


Do you also have a problem with churches that do not stone stubborn children to death?
Deut21:18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:

Deut21:19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
Deut21:20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
Deut21:21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

Should these churches also start eating their children?
Leviticus 26:29 And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat.


Deut 28:53 And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters, which the LORD thy God hath given thee, in the siege, and in the straitness, wherewith thine enemies shall distress thee:

First off Kynot, i respect you profound knowlege of the Bible and will not go into a verse war with you due to the fact that you know more of them than I do. Secondly though, all of your attempts to prove me wrong via the Old Testament are futile... Christ paid for our sins so that we no longer must live under the law. However as for your 1 Corinthians example you must also realize that this is a letter written to the cotinthians and that this particular part of the letter was discussing orderly worship and respectful worship. having said that, the verse that you have brought up was not and is not a law, it is a suggestion from Paul to the corinthian church. This suggestion was made so that respect could be maintained within the church. in Corinthian culture it was disrespectful for a woman to speak out in public, thusly it would be disrespectful for a woman to speak out in church. All of this is via a Zondervan Study Bible.

As for the constitutionally of gay marriage -- marriage is not a basic right guaranteed by the Constitution. The entire practice of marriage is a matter only for the States to rule on, including the gender, race, and number of participants involved in it. If a state law/constitutional clause outlaws homosexual marriages, that is the right of the state, as it is the right of the elected Representatives and the constituents of the state to make the institution open to diverse types of marriage.
Check the Bill of Rights. Marriage is guaranteed.


My stance: civil unions that guarantee the full rights and benefits of marriage should be extended to all homosexual couples seeking legal partnership. Seems simple enough to me.
Yeah, because separate but equal institutions worked so well last time...

Secondly though, all of your attempts to prove me wrong via the Old Testament are futile... Christ paid for our sins so that we no longer must live under the law.


Homosexuality is a sin (and it is a sin not just someting that we don't like Leviticus 18:22 "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.")

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but Leviticus is in the Old Testament, no?

it isn't often that I see such a hilariously badly constructed argument.

By defenition, marriage is between a man and a woman.

So if I were to say that Jennifer Connoly embodies the marriage between talent and beauty. Is talent the man and beauty the woman?

Makes no sense.

*WE* wrote the dictionary, you know. We can change the definition easily. It's not carved in stone.

ya but most people term anything they dont like as a sin

That was my rational for having that verse in my intial post. To prove that homosexuality is a sin not something that we have "termed a sin." Now because Christ died for us we no longer have to live by the laws regarding that sin, but that does not change the fact that it is indeed a sin.

Actually, the constitution says nothing of the sort. The Declaration of Indipendence says that all men are created equal. Either way, this really has nothing to do with the law, since it's not under debate whether Homesexuals and hederosexuals are created equal. Certainly they deserve fair treatment reguardless.

What is at stake is the equal protection of the law clause in the constitution. However, this argument is flawed because the law doesn't say that gays specificly can't get married, it says that no one can have a same-sex marrage, so a hederosexual could not enter into a same-sex marrage either. Therefor both are being treated equally. There is also no guarentee of marrage rights in the constituion.

For the record, I can't see why they shouldn't be allowed to get married, but it's a matter for the elected bodies, not the courts, since it is not a violation of constitutional rights.

Doesn't the constitution say that everyone was created equal and therefore, deserve the same rights?

Well, it says that all people are entitled to equal protection under the law.

So wouldn't deny someone to get married because of their sexual preferances be unconstitutional?

Yes. It would be entirely unconstitutional. Hence why a lot of us support gay marriage rights. :)