Freedom

Let's review my basic concept of freedom. Do whatever you want as long as it doesn't adversely or profoundly impact someone else. Let's see, there are thousands of gay people getting married right now and other than giving rednecks something to bitch about (which they need, so they should be thanking them), it hasn't impacted anyone yet. I'm here in my room right now, my skin hasn't turned green. I haven't murdered anyone yet. I haven't lost my interest in females. Water still tastes the same, hasn't been poisoned yet. What other possible impact can gay marriage have on me?

Someone explain to me how enacting a law that prevents homosexuals from marrying does not violate the constitution? What else are we allowed to prevent homosexuals from doing? Perhaps we should have separate drinking fountains, restaurants, and bathrooms, otherwise society might fall into disrepair. I would love to meet someone that can argue this one logically. I've heard counterpoint to the effect that homosexuals choose their lifestyle as opposed to blacks or other minorities that are born with it. So what? Bill O'Reilly likes ice cream. He and everyone else that likes ice cream are no longer allowed to listen to Beethoven because it takes away from the meaning of the music for me. F'ing dirtbags. First they listen to Beethoven and next you know it they'll want to perform in front of non-ice cream loving people. How do gay people getting married take away from the "meaning" of someone else's marriage. Quick hint out there and I'm not even married, but if you're looking to government to define and add meaning to your marriage, you're fucked up. You're so fucked up you should probably get divorced because while the government might be capable of doing some things, providing meaning to your failed relationship ain't going to happen.

I don't even see this as an issue of "gay rights." While marriage is not protected by the constitution, equal protections is I believe guaranteed by the the 15th ammendment even though it wasn't written for cases such as this. Check it:

"More concretely, the Equal Protection Clause, along with the rest of the Fourteenth Amendment, marked a great shift in American constitutionalism. Before the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Bill of Rights protected individual rights only from invasion by the federal government. After the Fourteenth Amendment was enacted, the Constitution also protected rights from abridgement by state leaders, and governments, even including some rights that arguably were not protected from abridgement by the federal government. In the wake of the Fourteenth Amendment, the states could not, among other things, deprive people of the equal protection of the laws. What exactly such a requirement means, of course, has been the subject of great debate; and the story of the Equal Protection Clause is the gradual explication of its meaning."

Now I'm probably missing the mark here with the above quote and I'm sure there are plenty of precedents clarifying this away from my own point, but what irks me here is that people want to give certain people a privelege or ability to get married but not others. That just doesn't sit right with me. I don't care if it's protected by the constitution or not. I don't care if voters voted for it or not (they also voted for slavery). I can't think of a better example of discrimination.