Just because you say so doesn't make it so. The Supreme Court, for example, does not agree. You may have as much contempt for the Supreme Court as I do, but the fact remains that they decide these cases. And so long as they do, we are bound by their decisions.
I am reminded of a guy I know who took the position that the Tax Code is unconstitutional, so he did not pay his taxes. If you'd asked him how he could justify not paying his taxes, he'd have told you that the Tax Code is unconstitutional. He's in jail now.
Does not agree with what? My explanation states the facts of the situation, the situation which the Court (obviously) ruled unconstitutional. My point was, the amendment didn't "authorize" discrimination, which is what you had claimed. The amendment only forbid sexual-orientation anti-discrimination laws. *That's* what the Court didn't approve of--the forbidding (via amendment) of laws which nobody was even required to pass in the first place.
My state doesn't have sexual-orientation anti-discrimination laws. Am I therefore "authorized" to do something that is normally forbidden?