There is a legitimate, rational reason to prohibit same sex marriage in the United States

Fist off, my remark on the Webster's reference with the interracial marriage must not have been worded correctly, as I did not mean it to be taken on a "racist" level. Also, I never said anything about the history of the Nineteenth Amendment, only that if the Fourteenth Amendment meant everybody, we wouldn't need the Nineteenth. Also. The Fourteenth Amendment didn't have to say "African American" or "Black" or, in the language at the time, "Negro," it was already implied due to the Emancipation. "The 14th amendment to the US Constitution was ratified on July 9, 1868 during the Reconstruction era. It, along with the 13th and 15th amendments are collectively known as the Reconstruction amendments. However, of those three, the 14th is the most complicated and the one that has had the more unforeseen effects. Its broad goal was to ensure that the CIVIL RIGHTS ACT passed in 1866 would remain valid ensuring that "all persons born in the United States...excluding Indians not taxed...." were citizens and were to be given "full and equal benefit of all laws." (Quotes from the Civil Rights Act of 1866) However, it went beyond the provisions of the CIVIL RIGHTS ACT in many ways." (http://americanhistory.about.com...) And the Civil Rights act was "passed over a presidential veto on 9 April 1866, the law declared all persons born in the United States to be citizens, except for unassimilated Native Americans, and defined and protected citizens' civil rights. The law was part of Congress's attempt to reconstruct the union and eradicate slavery after the Civil War. In 1865 Congress had sent the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery, to the states for ratification. Under President Andrew Johnson's program for restoring the union, the Southern states were required to ratify the Thirteenth Amendment and abolish slavery in their own states. However, the president set no requirements for the treatment of newly freed slaves. In the South and in many Northern states, free African Americans had not been considered state or national citizens and had been subject to special restrictions of various kinds. In Scott v. Sandford (1857)"the Dred Scott Case"the Supreme Court ruled that African Americans were not citizens of the United States. Acting on this view of the law, the Southern state governments reestablished under President Johnson's authority imposed varying restrictions on their black populations." (http://www.answers.com...) I also never said that same sex couples should take the blame for intolerance of others. I only implied that there will be intolerance and that people will get hurt because of it. My other argument on why national same sex marriage should be illegal (NATIONAL, I say) is that it would take away the rights of the States that make it illegal. (As far as individual states are concerned, that is up to the states.) "states' rights noun the rights belonging to the various states, especially with reference to the strict interpretation of the constitution, by which all rights not delegated by the Constitution to the federal government belong to the states." (http://dictionary.reference.com...) But for states like mine, (Texas), to have people fight to change it just is unfair. (My views aren't for a democratic nation, but a republic, or as dad calls it, a democratic republic.) So, if the government of Texas says that gay marriage is illegal for the state, than that should be final. The government must not intervene. Otherwise that is socialism, fascism, and hell. I'll go as far as Nazism. (Also cite the Roe v. Wade case; this case overturned individual state's rights to ban abortion[which also incorrectly used the Fourteenth Amendment], a violation of states' rights.) In all honesty, I am very fine with individual legalization. National legalization is, in itself, illegal, because it destroys our rights as "United" States.