[mudblood]

"Does the U.S. Constitution have any theological, philosophical, historical contexts and foundations, or did it come into existence out of nothing?"

The US constitution is based on judeo-christian ideals, and french philosophy. Most of the founders were religious, though many were deists, which is sorta religious. It came into existence mainly from a wellspring of discontent over excessive government imposition into people's lives. And nowhere in the Constitution does it say that gays have special rights, nor that they lack rights. Same thing goes with people of various races, not to mention sexes - and yet our country has never failed to cough up people who were able to justify, through their religion, why these segments of society don't have various rights. In the case of gay/straight, there's not even obvious physical differences to justify discrimination. There's a reason why the founding fathers wrote the Constitution, rather than simply holding up the Bible as our country's highest legal document: the Constitution is for everyone and CAN BE CHANGED. Once its in the bible, it stays there, is immutable, etc. The Constitution can be amended as it becomes necessary. This last attempt at that simply didn't pass the muster.

[unspun]

Thanks for your comments

The US constitution is based on judeo-christian ideals, and french philosophy.

Well, you're half right (the first half). I suggest you read the works of James Madison on the same; also On Revolution, by Hannah Arendt. Who are you talking about, JJ Rousseau? No. And as for Deists, there may have been about a couple notable ones in the mix, and not the Adams cousins, Jefferson, Washington, or Henry. (And certainly neither were Sidney, nor Locke, who were cited by Adams and Jefferson as providing the basis for the founding of the USA.)

There's a reason why the founding fathers wrote the Constitution, rather than simply holding up the Bible as our country's highest legal document: the Constitution is for everyone and CAN BE CHANGED.

The Constitution was held up as our highest legal document, because the Constitution lays out our governance, whereas the Bible is (and was regarded as) documentation of a higher, universal, and all saturating truth.

As you've pointed out, the Constitution proscribes ways of its being changed: i.e., by processes such as that begun with yesterday's vote -- not by judges elevating themselves to be the Ruling Tribunal of America.

Once its in [T]he [Bible, it stays there, is immutable, etc. The Constitution can be amended as it becomes necessary. This last attempt at that simply didn't pass the muster.

Really? I saw a muster --well, for everyone but Kerry and Edwards. mb: at the signing of the Constitution, some rights, responsibilities, and standards were enumerated while others were regarded as self-evident and treated as implicit. One of these, clearly, was the meaning of "marriage" as being a sacred commitment between one man and one woman. You're right. That is immutable, in the Bible of those who signed the Constitution, "in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven."