Gay marraige is inevitable. Not liking gays is not even close to a good enough reason to deny it. America is NOT a religion, it is a country and in America, people are free to believe and live differently.

Just because degenerates in another state want something, why does that mean my state, in which voters approved a state constitutional amendment specifically against such activity, has to have it forced down our throats against our conscience?

per #1´s logic: ____ is inevitable. Not liking _____ is not even close to a good enough reason to deny it. America is NOT a religion, it is a country and in America, people are free to believe and live differently.

Ergo:

Pedophilia is inevitable. Not liking pedophiles is not even close to a good enough reason to deny it. America is NOT a religion, it is a country and in America, people are free to believe and live differently.

or, how about this:

Murder is inevitable. Not liking murderers is not even close to a good enough reason to deny it. America is NOT a religion, it is a country and in America, people are free to believe and live differently.

or, how about this:

Necrophilia is inevitable. Not liking necrophiles is not even close to a good enough reason to deny it. America is NOT a religion, it is a country and in America, people are free to believe and live differently.

or one last one (if you don´t get the idea by now, I question whether you, and your orbitofrontal cortex, actually have an intact sensorium):

Zoophilia is inevitable. Not liking zoophiles is not even close to a good enough reason to deny it. America is NOT a religion, it is a country and in America, people are free to believe and live differently.

After this is in all 57 states and boredom sets in, will they fight to marry their favorite pet ?

#1 spamming this subject with the same emotional but illogical argument convinces nobody, especially those who know better.

The SCOTUS is again sticking its nose where it doesn´t belong. I smell another Roe v Wade decision coming.

Look: DOMA was known to be bad law when it was written. It was done to forestall a constitutional amendment. The full faith and credit clause of the Constitution trumps DOMA, and everyone knew it when the legislature passed it. It was for show, and nothing else - because they lacked the huevos to go after an amendment. The SCOTUS will say DOMA is unconstitutional NOT because homosexual ´marriage´ is wrong, but because it is not the fed´s business, but the states´. The only way the feds can accomplish this is by proposing an amendment to the constitution. Actually, I think it is time for a Constitutional Convention. Let´s just get it on once and for all.

Secular marriage is a contract. Any two consenting adults can legally enter a contract. If people don´t want the government allowing gay marriage, they should have kept the government out of marriage altogether, but that horse left the barn a long time ago. If our laws did not give preferential treatment based on marital status, and instead treated people equally under the law, then the incentive for gays to marry would be almost non-existent.

So if #7 is correct, what happens to the CA law?

If full faith and credit "trumps" DOMA, why don´t states have to recognize other states´ gun laws? The right to bear arms is an express Constitutional right. Yet is someone who legally possesses a gun on one state takes it to another state that has different gun laws can be subject to arrest. Also, the Constitution doesn´t prohibit discrimination in all cases. Only racial discrimination is subject to strict scrutiny. Most discrimination is judged using the rational basis test. It is a very easy standard to meet--as long as there is some rational reason for treating one group differently than another, it is legal.Isn´t wanting to preserve an institution that is thousands of years old,that is a bedrock of a civilized society, that benefits children and aims to make sure they are born within a stable, two-parent relationship a rational basis for preserving marriage as it has always been--between a man and a woman? How does gay marriage benefit society? It doesn´t.

Didn´t Justice Scalia warn years ago about the dangers of the equal protection clause?