Ok...
...first off, welcome.
You post is clear that you are for same sex marriage. Fine. If nothing else, there is no argument that official, legally recognized marriage is something new. Make a case for it.
You note that Massachusetts Supreme Court (a state, not federal court) declared it legal in Massachusetts. If you accept that a state has that right, then aren't you obligated to accept that a state has the right to NOT recognize gay marriage?
If not, if you support the idea that this is a US Constitution issue, as you note:
It is the U.S. Constitution that says every person is an equal and no Government shall infringe on their civil rights.
...then are you not obligate to state that Massachusetts court has no business ruling on federal, national, issues?
Or do you argue to have it both ways; It's a state issue if you agree with a particular states stance. It's a Constitutional issue if you disagree with, say Maryland?
Further, you argue for a vote. The people of Massachusetts were not allowed to vote. You call it a law but the court decreed a right which did not exist prior, gay marriage, which obligates the state to a legal contract, marriage, without a vote and without the governors signature. There was no law passed.
At the minimum, Maryland acted in a proper, accepted, lawful fashion; a bill was passed that the governor veto'd.
California did much the same thing when a city mayor, having far less standing than a state court, attempted to make state law. Or is it federal?
Further, you state:
We cannot continue to deny civil rights to any American for religious purposes
Does this suggest you would accept not recognizing gay marriage on other grounds?
What if three people, with full Constitutional rights, as you say, wish to marry? Or four? Would you argue they have a right? Wha tif they are minors? The Constitutional says nothing about an age requirement before the Bill of Rights applies.
If so, on what basis?
If not, again, on what basis?
Gay marriage does not exist. It has not existed. The marriage contract, both in religious settings and non-secular situations have long been accepted by conventional wisdom and tradition as being between one man and one woman.
Personally, as silly as the entire idea is, I am all for gay marriage...between two consenting adults. This is, by defintion, discrimanatory and I'm fine with that because, absent rational limits, chaos this way lies.
So, let the House and the Senate create some discrimanatory, unconstitutional (as you've defined it) legislation that will certainly be off to the the Supreme Court the moment the ink dries from a Presidential signature. Let homosexuals close the barn door to other peoples 'rights' once they get theirs.
The mayor of San Francisco and the Judges of the Massachusetts state Supreme court should be impeached. They knowingly and intentional violated their responsibilities and the sacred public trust. In a free society where individual rights can only be protected by rule of law they are the worst kind of activists; wrong ones.
