Gay marriage

I don't think you understand my argument. "The Fourteenth Amendment has nothing to do with gay marriage, "interracial" is the key word here." "Again this is talking about racial discrimination and has nothing to do with sexual orientation." The Fourteenth Amendment has nothing to do with interracial marriage, under that same argument. I am saying that the language in the Fourteenth Amendment, which was used in Loving v. Virginia to protect a basic civil right for interracial couples, can be easily extended to protect a basic civil right for homosexual couples. "everybody has the same right to be married as long as it is with one man and one woman." This was the same argument used by those who sided with Virginia in Loving v. Virginia. The Supreme Court ruled that a restriction such as "everyone has the right to marry so long as it be with the same race" violates the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Like I said, this logic can be easily extended to show that a restriction such as "everyone has the right to marry so long as it be with the opposite gender" also violates the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. "No, because there has been no constitutional amendment stating homosexual marriages will be protected by the law. The fourteenth amendment only speaks of interracial marriages nothing about homosexual marriages." There does not have to be an amendment. It is already protected by the Fourteenth. Also, like I said, the Fourteenth Amendment DOES NOT speak of interracial marriage at all. However, its intent can be applied to protect interracial marriage. Same with homosexual marriage. I will post the first section of the amendment again: "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." Nowhere does it mention race or sexual orientation. Therefore, we can use its language to protect the right to marriage regardless of either. "No, now your rewording the amendment, again this amendment speaks nothing of the sort." It's not supposed to mention specifics. It's supposed to be applied specifically to each scenario. "Now, here is a set of questions I would like to ask you. Would you support illegal marriages for example, a man who would like to marry his horse? Or a pedophile who would like to marry a 9 year old? How about a father who wants to marry his daughter is that acceptable in your view? If all marriages are a basic civil right than you would have to agree with all of the above." I would like to say that I can easily show why all of these slippery slope scenarios are immoral and/or are ridiculous comparisons to homosexual marriage, but I wish to stay within the bounds of the resolution–not whether or not homosexual marriage should be allowed, but rather that it is protected by the Constitution. I don't even know if these scenarios are really relevant to the debate, but I'll go ahead and answer them anyway. "Would you support illegal marriages for example, a man who would like to marry his horse?" A horse isn't "man." A horse isn't capable of consent. Homosexual partners are capable of consent. "Or a pedophile who would like to marry a 9 year old?" A pedophile is a criminal. A pedophile has therefore given up his or her rights. A 9 year old is incapable of consent in that a 9 year old is typically incapable of making such a decision. "How about a father who wants to marry his daughter is that acceptable in your view?" As long as they're both consenting, then the only reason not to allow it is because of the health risks posed to possible children. I'd like to point out that your scenarios aren't protected by the Constitution because they bring up issues addressed in other laws–age of consent, criminals, the possible harm done to babies by incestuous relationships, and the like. Gay marriage, however, should be protected by the Constitution, because it does not fall under any of the other categories.