Replies

The reason that the slippery slope argument by those opposing same sex marriage is legitimate is the same sex marriage proponents own arguments. They are arguing on the equal protection clause. Fine. If equal protection allows for gay marriage then it is not deniable that equal protection would also require the allowance of multiple partner marriage and other forms of "marriage." For to not do so, would violate their "equal protection."

Equal protection and due process, according to the liberal perverts, excuse every kind of sexual behavior any person might choose to do. What I don't get is how they can say with a straight face that we cannot clutter up the Constitution with Amendments dealing with marriage, yet they can find Amendments dealing with whatever new "right" that happen to want at any given moment in history. Who is cluttering up the constitution?

"They are arguing on the equal protection clause."

I do not think that is accurate statement.

Lawrence v Texas was not decided citing the 14th amendment (equal protection clause) as the constitutional basis for overturning sodomy laws enacted in the several states but it was the 9th amendment that was cited as the constitutional basis for the decision.

Amendment IX

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

How can it be argued that we the people do not have the retained right to have a sexual relationship with the adult of our choice, consentually, without interference from the state?

Isn't that what free people do?

Is all sexual behavior moral? No.

Is morality and moral behavior so fragile that without sanction by the state, massive amounts of the people would begin to act in an immoral manner and all morality will fall by the wayside?

If that is true, than churches and religions are virtually useless.

Yes, it takes moral people to live peacefully in a constitutional republic. But the state is not responsible for the people to be moral.