“What are the “common laws” or “stare decisis” clauses that deconstructed the standard definition of female-male matrimony?” Clauses? stare decisis and common law are based on judicially given opinions, not a written law itself. We follow the common law here, not the continental system (which is used in places like France or Spain). To get to your point though, it seems (and I apologize if I am misreading you) that you are arguing that the definitions of marriage previously used were specifically applied only to traditional couples. While historically these were likely the facts, the language in the opinions themselves seem to not impose such restrictions. Most of the discussion of marriage has used broad statements like that Marriage is “a fundamental human relationship” [Boddie v. CT] or “an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects” [ Griswold v. CT] and it is the “expression[] of emotional support and public commitment.” [Turner v. Safley]. There is no SCOTUS case, as far as I am aware, that explicitly indicates that marriage by its very definition is solely for heterosexual couples. Hence, in the absence of such a definitive language, our system applies it broadly through the 14th Amendment and, as a fundamental right, the state has an incredibly high burden to meet in restricting it.
A mere popular vote isn’t going to cut it.
“Race and prisoners were specifically enumerated in your examples and maintained the standard definition of marriage. If not why wasn’t there same sex “protections” in place already and spelled-out.” Simply because SCOTUS hasn’t addressed the issue yet. Even if they had made comments on it, based on the sets of facts of the cases presented to the Court, such statements would be mere dicta and non-binding. You need an actual case presenting these facts to be heard by SCOTUS before you would get the sort of discussion you seem to be advocating.
“I believe in enumeration (Especially when adhering to Natural Laws) not your penumbras under a “living Constitution”. I don’t disagree with you- except maybe on natural law (I don’t oppose the idea but to have any real power it has to be reduced to writing, as our founders did in drafting the constitution to reflect the principles of the Declaration). Despite your efforts to smear me, I also don’t believe in a “living constitution.” A “living constitution” is generally nothing more than a person trying to get away with playing politics so as to avoid the actual law. There is a difference, however, between that and the facts presented here. The U.S. constitution is silent on marriage largely because it is, and should be, a state issue since it is not a power enumerated to the Federal government (which btw may strike out DOMA even if there was no P&I clause). So the question then becomes whether an individual’s rights under the U.S. constitution (or state constitution but let’s keep it to US for our purposes) are violated by the state government’s actions. Our system, as adopted from English common law, uses court precedential interpretations of written law to determine the law. Our highest court has held, in very broad terms, that marriage is a fundamental right. It has also held that the Equal Protection Clause requires, in most cases, equal application of recognized fundamental rights. Consequently, the right to marriage must be extended to everyone provided the facts meet the definition of marriage which, as noted above, has been drafted very broadly. SCOTUS has given no indication, as highest interpreters of written law, that its broad view on marriage excludes same sex couples in any way. Despite what you may want to think, this analysis is based on the clear language of precedent and how our judicial system operates, not concepts of a “living constitution.” A “living constitution” approach would instead say “well all prior cases said marriage is between a man and woman but society has changed to the point where that distinction shouldn’t matter anymore.” I am not, and have not, said that. Instead I am applying the law on its face to the facts. Sorry it produces an outcome you don’t find desirable.
“Also marriage licenses were issued way before the late 1800’s, especially in larger settlements.” In some cases sure but they weren’t as widespread of a requirement as once the progressives came in. On as large a scale as is currently (required for every single marriage) it is has only existed as a requirement since 1929.