Replies

Patriots need to know why the first 20+ federal judges wrongly decided that state gay marriage bans are unconstitutional. I don't know if these judges were indoctrinated with the wrong ideas is law school, or if they are pro-gay activists, but below are excerpts from official sources which show why using the 14th Amendment's (14A) Equal Protections Clause to declare state marriage bans unconstitutional don't hold water.

Not only did John Bingham, the main author of Section 1 of 14A where the Equal Protections Clause is found, clarify in the congressional record that 14A applies only express protections amended to the Constitution by the states to the states, but the Supreme Court had essentially clarified the same thing about three years after Bingham's clarification.

“Mr. Speaker, this House may safely follow the example of the makers of the Constitution and the builders of the Republic, by passing laws for enforcing all the privileges and immunities of the United States as guaranteed by the amended Constitution and expressly enumerated in the Constitution [emphasis added].” — Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 42nd Congress, 1st Session. (See lower half of third column.)
“3. The right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities. It simply furnishes additional guaranty for the protection of such as the citizen already had [emphases added].” —Minor v. Happersett, 1874.

So since the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect so-called gay "righs," 14A has no constitutionally enumerated rights to apply to the states to protect gay agenda issues. So the states are free to make 10th Amendment-protected laws which discriminate against gay issues, as long as such laws don't also unreasonably abridge constitutionally enumerated rights.

Also, regardless what the corrupt media wants everybody to believe about the Supreme Court deciding the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional, Section 2 of DOMA is still in effect.

DOMA Section 2. Powers reserved to the states
No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

Note that DOMA's Section 2 is reasonably based on the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause, Clause 1 of Article IV, which gives Congress the power to decide the effect of one state's records in the other states.