Sure “they” do, and so do we (those who want to prohibit homosexual monogamy)... put the bong down and PAY ATTENTION...
Article. IV.Section. 1. Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Section. 2. The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
Article. V.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article;...
It was landmark U.S. Supreme Court precedent Reynolds v. United States in 1878 that made "separation of church and state" a dubiously legitimate point of case law, but more importantly; it confirmed the Constitutionality in statutory regulation of marriage practices.
Congress, state legislatures and public referenda have statutorily determined polygamous, pederast, homosexual, and incestuous marriages are unlawful. No Constitutional Amendment restricting marriage is required to regulate "practice" according to the Reynolds decision.
Marriage is a religious "rite," not a civil "right;" a secular standard of human reproductive biology united with the Judaic Adam and Eve model of monogamy in creationist belief. Two homosexuals cannot be "monogamous" because the word denotes a biological procreation they are not capable of together; human reproductive biology is an obvious secular standard.
All adults have privilege to marry one consenting adult of opposite gender; therefore, Fourteenth Amendment "equal protection" argument about "privileges and immunities" for homosexual marriage is invalid. Driving, marriage, legal and medical practices are not enumerated rights; they are privileged practices that require statutory license. Nothing that requires a license is a right.
Thus preserving the logic, the biological imperative, that underlies marriage. If men can marry men, and women can marry women, the logic underlying marriage is destroyed and any coupling for any reason, and in any numbers, may justly demand recognition as "marriage."
Judges who find a right to homosexual marriage floating about in the legal ether always take pains to limit is to couples, a hypocritical affirmation of the underlying logic of traditional marriage.
Reynolds is bogus. The court used Judeo-Christian religion for comparison. The religion in question was the Mormon religion. The court did everything it could to ignore the fact that the religion was Mormonism.
"No Constitutional Amendment restricting marriage is required to regulate "practice" according to the Reynolds decision."
The reynolds decision is as bogus as Roe. It means nothing. The 1st Amend does and I'll stand by that rather than the belching of a black robed scoundrel.
" Marriage is a religious "rite," not a civil "right;" a secular standard of human reproductive biology united with the Judaic Adam and Eve model of monogamy in creationist belief."
Marriage is a right, the rest is garbage.
" All adults have privilege"
LOL! Hahahaha....
"Nothing that requires a license is a right."
I've been fed up for a long time with this privilege crap. People, politicians and courts that spew this garbage are full of it. This is a free country and we have rights, not privileges.