(P.S. I been having problems with this but no one answers me logically, they just saw how they feel about it. What I want to know is how the two things above can be logically consistent.)
I don't see a problem -the same argument could be made of the US Constitution. IF homosexuals are now considered due the same rights as heterosexuals due to the equal protection clause THEN why did women and blacks require constitutional amendments to acquire said rights?
The answer is simple -liberal judges are now interpreting beyond the original intent of the Constitution. In essence legislating from the bench...
Okay, I think between the three of you, I got a handle on it now. The constitution is always open to interpretation and so one can say or not say that gay marriage is banned by it. And when judges do that, their decision has some "teeth," of course. Meanwhile, if you add the specific amendment against a right for a group, you are making much more sure no one will ever be able to change it.
I have one remaining thought about amendments that give groups rights vs. an amendment that takes them away, especially pending additional scientific knowledge we may someday have on the matter, but I do now understand the logical explanation of my confusion.
Thank you, very much, ladies and/or gentlemen.