The remainder of this thread is previously posted evidence that pro-gay judges and justices are wrongly ignoring 10th Amendment-protected state sovereignty to independently decide gay issues.
----------
Gay marriage is unconstitutional for the following simple reason imo. The states have never amended the Constitution to specifically protect so-called gay “rights,” such as gay marriage. This means two things under the Constitution.
The Founding States had made the 10th Amendment to clarify that the Constitution’s silence about things like marriage means that such issues are uniquely state power issues.
Since the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect gay marriage, gay marriage is not a constitutionally protected right.
Also, regardless what the corrupt media wants everybody to think about the Supreme Court's decision concerning DOMA, Section 2 of DOMA is still in effect. Section 2 is reasonably based on Congress's Article IV, Section 1 power, the Full Faith and Credit clause, to regulate the effect of one state's records in the other states, and gives the states the power to ignore gay marriages recognized in other states. But Section 2 is wrongly being ignored by both judges and justices imo.
DOMA Section 2. Powers reserved to the statesNo State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.
So the states are free to make 10th Amendment-protected laws which discriminate against constitutionally unprotected gay “rights,” such as gay marriage imo, as long as such laws don’t unreasonably abridge constitutionally enumerated rights.
Again, the troubling question is why are legal professionals who are supposed to be protecting state laws prohibiting gay marriage evidently not arguing the above points in defense of such laws?
"Gay marriage is unconstitutional for the following simple reason imo."
That statement is in error and should read as follows.
"Tenth Amendment-protected state laws prohibiting gay marriage are not unconstitutional for the following simple reason imo."
Who said they're not making those arguments? Every state that has defended its marriage laws (and yes, a few, such as California and Virginia just rolled over and agreed their laws were unconstitutional, but most states fought the issue) have argued the Tenth Amendment. The federal courts have rejected that argument, but the argument was certainly made.