I followed the link and found zilch to back up your implication that same-sex "marriage" has any kind of historical basis in Western civilization. Unless you count Greek pedophilia (not marriage, and pretty sick) and a couple of insane, power mad Roman emperors who "married" their boyfriends, which was in violation of the law and universally ridiculed, you're just plain out of luck. Some leftists have tried to argue that various "brotherhood bonds" throughout history, where men vowed friendship or comradeship, were "same-sex 'marriages'", but of course they weren't.
Just a thought for you: How hard would it have been to find someone in, say, 1948, who’d claim, “until the total loss of our common sense in recent years, marriage has never been between people of different races.” Not very hard, I bet. In fact, as I mentioned earlier in the thread, 90% of people opposed interracial marriage at that point, according to the poll data. If left to a vote, interracial couples who wanted to marry would have been out of luck.
You might want to try using logic instead of appealing to non-analogous situations. Attitudes toward interracial marriages have varied throughout Western history. People of different races can mate and produce offspring. Individual races can also form nations and societies that are distinct from those of other races. This sometimes creates a conflict where some people say "race shouldn't matter" while others say "yes, race does matter, those other races create different cultures than our own".
That's a normal debate that might occur in any society. But homosexuals cannot create a nation or reproduce among themselves. Therefore, the idea of same-sex "marriage" is ludicrous. It's as ludicrous as human-animal "marriage" or human-inanimate object "marriage".
Ah, so the ability for a couple to produce biological offspring is a requirement for marriage, in your opinion?
By your logic, marriage between a man and a post-menopausal woman should be illegal. Such pairings would not contribute to the “creation of a nation” or “produce offspring” biologically.
I guess we’ll have to institute some sort of fertility test before handing out the marriage license, eh?
Want to start over and try again?
Give it up. You’re dealing with a typical libertarian who would let this country turn to anarchy before admitting that one of her theories or ideals wasn’t a good idea.
As for the US Constitution, the equal protection clause was not added to address the issue of sexual orientation. It was primarily about race. No doubt it’ll soon happen, but homosexuals should not be treated as a “suspect class” under the US Constitution unless a constitutional amendment is passed that either supports the leftist view of a constantly expanding idea of equal protection or explicitly guarantees protection against laws regarding sexual orientation.
And yes, that means that I think the proper way to have addressed the issues of gender would have been an amendment to the Constitution, not a series of judicial decisions based on a rather flimsy rationale. If the ERA would have explicitly left out the issue of abortion, it’d have been a darn good idea.