The real question here for those running for the Presidency is not whether their religious faith holds that homosexuality is a sin and gay marriage would be forbidden by God as they understand him. The real question is whether in purely secular civil matters according to the equal protection clause Amendment XIV, gay adults should be entitled to the privileges and protections of civil marriage just like other (heterosexual) adults.
Amendment XIV SECTION. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
I have no doubt whatsoever that Huckabee would impose his personal religious creed on the civil law. That, and his support of big central social programs are, why I oppose him.
Would Cruz do the same as a “Constitutional Conservative”? Or would Cruz make a demarcation between the civil and the religious, - supporting equity in civil marriage, while supporting religious institutions and individuals First Amendment Rights to conscience in not accepting homosexuality and not performing gay marriage or personal services as part of such a marriage? So far I think he has just punted the issue to state jurisdiction under the 10th.
Are you claiming gay marriage is a constitutional right based on the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment?
Point out your primary sources on Amendment XIV’s debate to amend on the insistence that innate qualities equal unnatural non-sensible behaviors.
Original intent or do you support infallible “relative” readings in Constitutional law not even based on common law/natural law from which the charter sprang from.