You're correct that the 14th Amendment was ratified to prevent racial discrimination, but the Supreme Court long ago expanded it far beyond that. And in Romer vs. Evans, they expanded it to "protect" homosexuals, with Anthony Kennedy writing that bigotry was the only possible reason voters might have for treating homosexuals differently from heterosexuals. Read Scalia's stinging dissent on that 6-3 ruling.
You're also correct that there's a huge difference between prohibiting interracial marriage and prohibiting gay "marriage". The problem is, liberals don't see it that way. They see the Boy Scouts as the equivalent of the KKK because they won't send little boys camping with gay scoutmasters. BTW, the scouts won at the Supreme Court by the breathtaking margin of 5-4. I'm glad they won, but it's pretty apparent that there are already four votes on the court to expand the gay agenda exponentially. Combine that with Kennedy, or the appointees of a future Democrat president, and were hanging by a thread.
You seem to be using the same argument that moderate Republicans always use. Why, there's no need to pass a law banning "X"! It's unthinkable that anyone would ever try to legalize something as unpopular and untraditional as "X"! Let's concentrate on more important things like the budget deficit or our trade imbalances, rather than stirring up turmoil by talking about "X"!
It's a sure recipe for disaster.
I lived in Colorado then and voted for Amendment 2. The courts found that Amendment 2 singled out homosexual and bisexual persons, imposing on them a broad disability by denying them the right to seek and receive specific legal protection from discrimination. In other words when we voted for Amendment 2, we said that no jurisdiction could create specific laws protecting homosexuals.
Justice Kennedy said however, that oftentimes a law will be sustained under the equal protection clause, even if it seems to disadvantage a specific group, so long as it can be shown to "advance a legitimate government interest." Amendment 2, by depriving persons of equal protection under the law due to their sexual orientation failed to advance such a legitimate interest. Had Colorado specified for example that no homosexual adoptions could take place, nor any nontraditional marriage, I see no reason why it would be overturned as Amendment 2 was. The Florida decision seemed to confirm that.
They see the Boy Scouts as the equivalent of the KKK because they won't send little boys camping with gay scoutmasters.
Yes, liberals see it that way. Not sure the KKK comparison is valid, but in any case, the USSC supported the Boy Scouts in this issue, as you pointed out.
but it's pretty apparent that there are already four votes on the court to expand the gay agenda exponentially.
The USSC refusal to accept the 11th Circuit appeal seems to indicate that it will be a long time before that happens.
Combine that with Kennedy, or the appointees of a future Democrat president, and were hanging by a thread.
Kennedy voted with the majority on the Boy Scout case. The only four possible replacements for the years to come are liberals. I see no danger of this relatively conservative court suddenly shifting its moral compass.
You seem to be using the same argument that moderate Republicans always use. Why, there's no need to pass a law banning "X"! It's unthinkable that anyone would ever try to legalize something as unpopular and untraditional as "X"! Let's concentrate on more important things like the budget deficit or our trade imbalances, rather than stirring up turmoil by talking about "X"!
I'm not questioning your motives in the slightest. So would appreciate the same in return. Nevertheless, in this particular case, there are far more important issues to deal with including immigration reform, the war on terror, including those you listed above.
But once again, I do think we are not addressing the same issue. I am discussing only a challenge to DOMA. Others here are discussing an amendment to prevent a state from exercising powers granted to it in the Constitution. This I can never agree to.