[TheRealThing]

Equal protection under the law is a function of justice. Two men come to the court and ask that the state grant them the protection of marriage. Upon what grounds does the state deny them this protection? The state says, "You may not pursue happiness in this manner." Why not? Two consenting adults of the same sex come asking. Upon what grounds are they denied? Are you sure Thomas Jefferson would dismiss this question as out of hand? Would he, in fact, say, "Why, by God's natural law, only a man and a woman may marry." Or, is it also plausible that the mind that was in Jefferson might also come to the conclusion that civil authority, operating under the Equal Protection Clause, should not tell two consenting adults they cannot marry, as that stricture takes the teaching and authority of a religion and uses it to limit the freedom of citizens? It is not beyond logic to think so, or to also question whether an 18th century man, no matter how enlightened, could possibly entertain how a society might evolve over the course of hundreds of years?

I do not believe that granting homosexuals the right to marry under the Equal Protection Clause compromised essential liberty at all in this nation.

That's the talking point version. Don't forget the part about how American heroes who lay down their lives in defense of their country deserve to pursue happiness. Somehow, and understanding escapes me in such cases, but somehow there are people who are driven to do extremely reckless acts such as playing Russian Roulette for pastime. They have the right to do that too, but I don't believe for one second the practice makes them happy. Should we carve out legislative considerations for any family members left behind when the inevitable happens to them as well? If you would allow yourself to be completely honest about this, you'd have to admit drug usage, sex addiction, over eating, smoking, alcohol addiction, compulsive gambling, even a life of crime, all fit the definition of pursuing that which makes one happy. That's the secular side of the argument and I suppose is the reason liberals can't seem to get over their bent to release the contents of the prison system back out to rape, plunder and murder all over again.

There are laws which govern this universe. Thermodynamics, physics and possibly astro-physics, the laws of gravity, time and space. All of these things are the stuff of a finite and orderly universe, they continue to be what they are apart from man's perception, which BTW, varies greatly over time. Man can no more just jump up and declare one of these fundamental laws null and void, anymore than he can pass laws to by edict, declare them null and void. The founders were aware of this and therefore included language to that effect within the founding documents.
"and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitles them"

Regardless of his achievement or level of arrogance, man cannot overrule the laws of nature. The same holds true for The Word of God, which whether one might want to admit it or not, cannot be changed, modified or overruled. Men ought not call that good which He has called sin. Homosexuality is sin, and for the United States to embrace the practice from the enlightened 21st Century point of view is just as rebelliously absurd as it was in Old Testament days. Incredibly we have created a protected class under the Constitution based on noting more than sexual deviancy. And like I said in the previous post and you side stepped it, alcoholism is another sin which holds many in it's death grip. So what's it gonna be, legislative carve-outs all around, or not?

In any case, Jefferson's writings are sufficiently replete so that I am confident that he would not have supported gay marriage. And he certainly would not have condoned the Supreme Court's having usurped individual State sovereignty and the standing referendums on the matter.