If what is contained therein is somehow not seen as parts of the Law it codifies, then, IMHO, one could conclude that there is no United States of America, which it also clearly sets out.
I therefore agree with the article's author, stupid as you may see it notwithstanding.
The problem with the article is not that it cites the Preamble. I never brought that up. The problem with the article is that it is logically absurd. ie. Stupid.
Its argument is basically that because the Preamble mentions "posterity", that the Constitution itself, particularly the 14th Amendment, protects traditional marriage.
But the Preamble doesn't actually mention marriage. So to get to the article's conclusion one must believe that because the word "posterity" is used, the Constitution only protects husbands and wives, not only in regard to marriage, but in its entirety. And really, it's not husbands and wives, because again it doesn't mention marriage. It must be people that have children. That's who produces "posterity".
So the logical reasoning of this article is that all of the provisions in the Constitution protecting various individual rights, do not apply to anyone that hasn't produced a child.
Obviously this is absurd. The Constitution applies to everyone, regardless of how many children you have, and regardless of your marital status. The article is nonsense.