There does not have to be a marriage law exclusively for gays.
The Supremes merely changed the interpretation of the existing laws. Based on the equal protection clauses. Therefore, if there is a marriage statute it applies to any two unrelated people considered adults.
Now, I don’t think ANY state should be involved in the marriage business. Marriage is a union based on religious standards. But, if you are going to have one...it’s got to include gays.
>>The Supremes merely changed the interpretation of the existing laws. Based on the equal protection clauses. Therefore, if there is a marriage statute it applies to any two unrelated people considered adults.
Many states used the terms “husband” and “wife” on their forms and in their laws. So, this harmless “interpretation” that you support did require changes to legal documents.
An “interpretation” that changes the legal definition of terms found in a law is a change in the law.
“The Supremes merely changed the interpretation of the existing laws.”
Ohio Revised Code 3101.01 states among other things:
“A marriage may only be entered into by one man and one woman.”
How do you change the interpretation of that existing law?
DOMA is still the law of the land.
We executed "gays" for sodomy during the founding era, and we locked them up in Asylums until the late 1950s thereafter.
On what basis do you claim that our laws have to include "gays"?
Where did you get this idea?