• you’re allowed to be Christian is not inferred by the 14th Amendment. One might argue as to whether it is inferred by natural law, or by the DOI, and whether either is truly binding. But it is certainly protected rather unambiguously by the 1st Amendment. Further dismantling your statement, absent natural law or the 1st Amendment, “equal protection of the laws” hardly makes a case for freedom of religion, per se. The EPC would have to be contorted to fit that question, not that f-ing lawyers wouldn’t give it a try for a buck.
• no gay man or woman has ever presumed or argued for a right to equal social equality. Are you kidding me? Are you aware, did you perhaps notice, that they are not satisfied with “civil unions”, which ensure all the legal benefits of real marriage. No, they want to co-opt the word “marriage”. If not for “equal social equality”, then why, do you suppose?

I’m sorry you can’t convince, that is force from the judiciary bench, enough Americans to believe differiently than you do.

Once we start creating protected classes based upon an individuals sexuality you cheapen all other protected classes and open up the pandoras box of what sexual persuasions deserve to be considered a protected class and which ones do not.

Oh and nobody is basing their decisions on religious law alone…to say that makes you sound ignorant.

Further, the Equal Protection Clause is the relevant section in both the Iowa and the federal constitutions. It nowhere says “you’re allowed to be Christian,” either, but we infer that from the EPC too.

Moving on for a second, no gay man or woman has ever presumed or argued for a right to equal social equality. In fact, no minority ever has either. Look back to the debates on the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment: the law cleanly bifurcates civil rights, which the government can and must afford, from social equality, which the government cannot touch. Unless your contention is that someone else’s marriage assumes, by its government authorization, your personal and direct approval of the marriage, your text is way off-base too.

As to the argument that, because men can marry women and women can marry men, there’s no equal protection violation, you’re missing the point. This same type of argument was tried to defend anti-miscegenation laws: “black men can’t marry white women, and white women can’t marry black men, etc. See! Perfectly equal application across races!” That didn’t work either. The question is whether the law’s insistence on formal equality permits substantive inequality, and in Loving v. Virginia, the Court answered emphatically no.

There IS NO legal case for banning gay marriage. The law does not allow one group of people to stipulate how the other should live, based on religious law alone.

It’s about time to decipher the Constitution more carefully “to the LETTERS”.

This one is an amazing Work deserving to be featured in Ripley’s Believe It Or Not… better than the brains of the thousands of liberal lawyers combined.

Congratulations!!!!

Not like Liberals pay any attention to what is in the Bible (or whatever Religious text they pretend to care about, for Public consumption) either.

except maybe to make divorces harder to get