Homosexual Marriage ban. Constitutional violation?

[Genivaria]

Humans can agree on whatever they wish, but IF you support Judeo-Christian beliefs (or Muslim), then you have to accept that the Laws of Moses - Laws of God - do not support homosexual love.

Fine, now YOU have to accept that Biblical Law has about as much validity in United States law-making as Sharia Law does, which is jack shit.

[Sedikal]

"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is a vital part of the American constitution. If we ban same sex marriage then we are not granting homosexuals the right to pursue happiness.

[Threlizdun]

"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is a vital part of the American constitution. If we ban same sex marriage then we are not granting homosexuals the right to pursue happiness.

Actually that would be the American Declaration of Independence.

[Sedikal]

"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is a vital part of the American constitution. If we ban same sex marriage then we are not granting homosexuals the right to pursue happiness.

Actually that would be the American Declaration of Independence.

Thanks for the correction. It's been almost 6 years since I last read the constitution or decleration. But the basic principle still stands.

[The Murray Dynasty]

"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is a vital part of the American constitution. If we ban same sex marriage then we are not granting homosexuals the right to pursue happiness.

So far in just a matter of hours this forum has been pretty good. No real big church bashers or trolls, which is pretty nice to have a semi-civilized discussion. Warhammer?... Anyways, the reason I was bringing this up was because if the state ballet does not pass homosexual marriage in November, I have been planning to waist my winter making a lawsuit against the State of Maine with heavy support from the gay community. I have contacted a few lawyers, and have noticed a more willing trend out of young law firms looking to make themselves known. I am prepared to sue the state for violation of equal rights, and to add to it, violation of the free market. I know it sounds completely ridiculous, but hear me out, if someone can actually make that ground breaking move and get the case into court, I know I would have to end up in the Supreme Court, but I believe for the sake of friends and close family, it would make their lives complete to finally be legally joined with their partner, weather it be by marriage or civil union. The next step would be only a matter of time into acceptance, but I truely believe if someone has the balls enough to stand up and say know, the group would have a large backing.

[Vazdania]

So this has been on my mind for a very long time, I am a supporter of the homosexual community, and many of my family members, and friends are homosexual in nature. So through legal studies as a kid during my high school and middle school years, I have been researching, and investigating. I wanted to bring it to nation states to some of the better debate groups on the internet.

So my case is a simple stature of the following;

In the bill of rights (the first ten amendments to the constitution), it states there should be freedom of religion, and all that babble, we all know it and mostly understand it. Though, everytime I hear about the homosexual issue come up, I hear politicians, major news groups, and others pick a side towards the bible. Though times are changing rapidly towards the view of homosexual marriage, there is still a bible christianty bias in the United States.

Therefore in my arguement, is it illegal for any state, or even the United States government based on behalf of their constitution by their fore-fathers to make Homosexual Marriage illegal, when Marriage is legalized and administered by the state?

Is it a crime for the government to keep this issue illegal?

My point is that the constution even states a freedom of religion, and etc, etc, etc. So when you base your opinion, and even in many court cases it has been proven that the separation of church and state is prominant, on this issue, why is that still the case? My home state, Maine is putting this issue on the ballot, and with a large elderly community and anti-homosexual community in the state, this bill will likely pass by a short margine, or fail in a tie.

My final question is, can someone gain support and take legal action in a law suit against a state for violation of constitutional rights?

how is it a 'constitutional right' nowhere in the Constitution does it say that???

Due to my Minarchist beliefs, I have to say that based on the Constitution, the real powers of congress like in Article 1 sectiosn 8-10 , nowhere does it say Congress has the power to regulate who and who cannot get married. This is coming from a Republican.

[Genivaria]

"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is a vital part of the American constitution. If we ban same sex marriage then we are not granting homosexuals the right to pursue happiness.

So far in just a matter of hours this forum has been pretty good. No real big church bashers or trolls, which is pretty nice to have a semi-civilized discussion. Warhammer?... Anyways, the reason I was bringing this up was because if the state ballet does not pass homosexual marriage in November, I have been planning to waist my winter making a lawsuit against the State of Maine with heavy support from the gay community. I have contacted a few lawyers, and have noticed a more willing trend out of young law firms looking to make themselves known. I am prepared to sue the state for violation of equal rights, and to add to it, violation of the free market. I know it sounds completely ridiculous, but hear me out, if someone can actually make that ground breaking move and get the case into court, I know I would have to end up in the Supreme Court, but I believe for the sake of friends and close family, it would make their lives complete to finally be legally joined with their partner, weather it be by marriage or civil union. The next step would be only a matter of time into acceptance, but I truely believe if someone has the balls enough to stand up and say know, the group would have a large backing.

I wish you the best of luck friend.
I'd gladly support my High School friends being able to marry the ones they love.

[Sedikal]

"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is a vital part of the American constitution. If we ban same sex marriage then we are not granting homosexuals the right to pursue happiness.

So far in just a matter of hours this forum has been pretty good. No real big church bashers or trolls, which is pretty nice to have a semi-civilized discussion. Warhammer?... Anyways, the reason I was bringing this up was because if the state ballet does not pass homosexual marriage in November, I have been planning to waist my winter making a lawsuit against the State of Maine with heavy support from the gay community. I have contacted a few lawyers, and have noticed a more willing trend out of young law firms looking to make themselves known. I am prepared to sue the state for violation of equal rights, and to add to it, violation of the free market. I know it sounds completely ridiculous, but hear me out, if someone can actually make that ground breaking move and get the case into court, I know I would have to end up in the Supreme Court, but I believe for the sake of friends and close family, it would make their lives complete to finally be legally joined with their partner, weather it be by marriage or civil union. The next step would be only a matter of time into acceptance, but I truely believe if someone has the balls enough to stand up and say know, the group would have a large backing.

I'll be be routing for you all the way. It takes brave people like you to get something done.

[The Murray Dynasty]

It is a right when you bring in religion, and people's freedoms.

[Shnercropolis]

Humans can agree on whatever they wish, but IF you support Judeo-Christian beliefs (or Muslim), then you have to accept that the Laws of Moses - Laws of God - do not support homosexual love.

No.
You don't.

[Liriena]

I myself actually regard the ban of same-sex marriage as a violation of Human Rights (fundamentally: religious freedom and equality under the law).

Now...Unconstitutional? It is quite up to debate, especially in a country such as the US where, indeed, there is a rather blatant Christian bias (and the Republican Party takes pride on their belief that the US's law should be based in the Bible, thus giving non-Judeo-Christian religious minorities the finger).
My interpretation is that, indeed, banning same-sex marriage is a violation of the First Ammendment: it violates religious freedom by giving the opinion of the Christian mayority more weight in the Law than that of the gay minority, which does not follow the particular piece of Christian doctrine that stablishes marriage as restricted only to heterosexual men and women.

I believe the LGBT movement should focus their fight on the First Ammendment (religious freedom) instead of the Fourteenth Amendment (equality), as said position would, in my opinion, severely weaken the power of the religion-obsessed right-wing's arguments.

[Trotskylvania]

"Marriage is legalized and administered by the state"

Marriage is not legalized or administered by the state or federal government. At the time of the writing of the American Constitution, marriage was administered and sanctioned by the church - whatever church you chose - and was a convenant between a man, woman, and God. Government officials, like judges, could perform a civil ceremony, to bind to people, but it did NOT have any religious basis.

Many of those who oppose gay marriage do so because the word "marriage" implies a covenant between the couple and God.

No it wasn't. Churches had a role to play in the civil function of marriage because there was no separation between church and state. But in English law, marriage has always been a civil matter first and a religious matter second. Our own traditions are derivative of this.

You're just as married if a justice of the peace performs the ceremony as you would be if a religious cleric performed it.

[Australasia]

So this has been on my mind for a very long time, I am a supporter of the homosexual community, and many of my family members, and friends are homosexual in nature. So through legal studies as a kid during my high school and middle school years, I have been researching, and investigating. I wanted to bring it to nation states to some of the better debate groups on the internet.

So my case is a simple stature of the following;

In the bill of rights (the first ten amendments to the constitution), it states there should be freedom of religion, and all that babble, we all know it and mostly understand it. Though, everytime I hear about the homosexual issue come up, I hear politicians, major news groups, and others pick a side towards the bible. Though times are changing rapidly towards the view of homosexual marriage, there is still a bible christianty bias in the United States.

Therefore in my arguement, is it illegal for any state, or even the United States government based on behalf of their constitution by their fore-fathers to make Homosexual Marriage illegal, when Marriage is legalized and administered by the state?

Is it a crime for the government to keep this issue illegal?

My point is that the constution even states a freedom of religion, and etc, etc, etc. So when you base your opinion, and even in many court cases it has been proven that the separation of church and state is prominant, on this issue, why is that still the case? My home state, Maine is putting this issue on the ballot, and with a large elderly community and anti-homosexual community in the state, this bill will likely pass by a short margine, or fail in a tie.

My final question is, can someone gain support and take legal action in a law suit against a state for violation of constitutional rights?

In the case of the United States specifically, I refer you to the eight federal courts (including two circuit courts of appeal) which have struck down DOMA (the federal statute which prevents the US government from recognizing lawfully valid state same-sex marriages) in recent times, and perhaps more directly, the Prop 8 case, Perry v. Brown.

[Moving Forward Inc]

So this has been on my mind for a very long time, I am a supporter of the homosexual community, and many of my family members, and friends are homosexual in nature. So through legal studies as a kid during my high school and middle school years, I have been researching, and investigating. I wanted to bring it to nation states to some of the better debate groups on the internet.

So my case is a simple stature of the following;

In the bill of rights (the first ten amendments to the constitution), it states there should be freedom of religion, and all that babble, we all know it and mostly understand it. Though, everytime I hear about the homosexual issue come up, I hear politicians, major news groups, and others pick a side towards the bible. Though times are changing rapidly towards the view of homosexual marriage, there is still a bible christianty bias in the United States.

Therefore in my arguement, is it illegal for any state, or even the United States government based on behalf of their constitution by their fore-fathers to make Homosexual Marriage illegal, when Marriage is legalized and administered by the state?

Is it a crime for the government to keep this issue illegal?

My point is that the constution even states a freedom of religion, and etc, etc, etc. So when you base your opinion, and even in many court cases it has been proven that the separation of church and state is prominant, on this issue, why is that still the case? My home state, Maine is putting this issue on the ballot, and with a large elderly community and anti-homosexual community in the state, this bill will likely pass by a short margine, or fail in a tie.

My final question is, can someone gain support and take legal action in a law suit against a state for violation of constitutional rights?

There is such a thing as a secular argument against gay marriage, therefore the idea that all arguments for banning it are anti-constitutional is wrong.
Anyway, what makes something unconstitutional is the action itself, not the justifications behind it.
I think you would have a better argument from the point of view of the declaration of independence.
"Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, equality under the law".
By banning gay marriage, you are denying homosexuals equal liberty and ability to pursue happiness.

[Cromarty]

No, dear, the church grants marriage; the state grants civil unions.

This just blatantly isn't true.

[Grenartia]

Humans can agree on whatever they wish, but IF you support Judeo-Christian beliefs (or Muslim), then you have to accept that the Laws of Moses - Laws of God - do not support homosexual love.

As a Christian LGBT, I can safely tell you that its bullshit to say that God hates homosexuality.

Good thing they don't matter, since the validity of marriage is granted by the State.

Sure, as long as we are speaking of Earthly matters. Some people would believe that their are more commanding powers-that-be than our duly elected representatives in the Washington Beltway

And some would say that those powers that be above Washington are perfectly fine with two people of the same sex or of the same gender getting married.

There's nothing in the constitution expressly preserving the right to Homosexual marriage.

Nothing expressly banning it, either. Though one could argue that banning same-sex marriage violates LGBTs right to the pursuit of happiness (which could be protected under the 9th Amendment).

"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is a vital part of the American constitution. If we ban same sex marriage then we are not granting homosexuals the right to pursue happiness.

My thoughts exactly.

"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is a vital part of the American constitution. If we ban same sex marriage then we are not granting homosexuals the right to pursue happiness.

Actually that would be the American Declaration of Independence.

9th Amendment says hello.

So this has been on my mind for a very long time, I am a supporter of the homosexual community, and many of my family members, and friends are homosexual in nature. So through legal studies as a kid during my high school and middle school years, I have been researching, and investigating. I wanted to bring it to nation states to some of the better debate groups on the internet.

So my case is a simple stature of the following;

In the bill of rights (the first ten amendments to the constitution), it states there should be freedom of religion, and all that babble, we all know it and mostly understand it. Though, everytime I hear about the homosexual issue come up, I hear politicians, major news groups, and others pick a side towards the bible. Though times are changing rapidly towards the view of homosexual marriage, there is still a bible christianty bias in the United States.

Therefore in my arguement, is it illegal for any state, or even the United States government based on behalf of their constitution by their fore-fathers to make Homosexual Marriage illegal, when Marriage is legalized and administered by the state?

Is it a crime for the government to keep this issue illegal?

My point is that the constution even states a freedom of religion, and etc, etc, etc. So when you base your opinion, and even in many court cases it has been proven that the separation of church and state is prominant, on this issue, why is that still the case? My home state, Maine is putting this issue on the ballot, and with a large elderly community and anti-homosexual community in the state, this bill will likely pass by a short margine, or fail in a tie.

My final question is, can someone gain support and take legal action in a law suit against a state for violation of constitutional rights?

how is it a 'constitutional right' nowhere in the Constitution does it say that???

Due to my Minarchist beliefs, I have to say that based on the Constitution, the real powers of congress like in Article 1 sectiosn 8-10 , nowhere does it say Congress has the power to regulate who and who cannot get married. This is coming from a Republican.

The 9th Amendment can be argued to protect it under the right of the pursuit of happiness.

[SaintB]

The 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection under the law. Since marriage is a legal construct in the United States it is a legitimate and logical argument to say that by denying homosexual couples the right to have their legitimate marriage recognized by the Federal Government denies them that equal protection.

The 9th Amendment states that there are rights not expressly remunerated in the Constitution; most people take this to include the rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, which is itself NOT a legal document but it is an article of intent to form a new government dedicated to protecting the rights of the governed and not of the governing. The DoI makes mention of three all inclusive rights, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and even if one believes that those are the only three rights that exist outside the ones remunerated in the constitution two of those three (liberty and the pursuit of happiness) include getting married to whomever you want. By denying people the right to marry the person they want to the Federal Government is denying them their 'other/un-enumerated' rights under the 9th amendment.

Those are two legitimate legal reasons not including religion as to why Constitutional Marriage bans should not be possible and why laws such as DOMA should not have a leg to stand on. Adding strength and credence to those two arguments is the 5th Amendment's due process clause; some argue that by denying equal protection and/or those rights which are not expressly enumerated you are denying people their due process of the law.

Another argument which involves religion is based around the 1st Amendment which grants people the freedom to practice the religion of their choice. If Marriage is wholly a religious construct as opposed to a legal one than by choosing to recognize some marriages over others the Federal Government is once again guilty of violating its own legal framework by showing preference to religions that define marriage in a single narrow way (man and woman) and claiming marriages counter to that are not legitimate - this is religious favoritism and a clear violation of the Constitution.

So in review of this pretty big (for me) post.

1. Banning homosexual marriage on the grounds that it is illegitimate in the eyes of the Fed is a violation of Equal Protection under the 14th Amendment which in turn MAY BE a violation of Due Process.

2. Banning homosexual marriage because it is gross is a violation of the 9th Amendment which in turn MAY BE a violation of Due Process.

3. Banning homosexual marriage on religious grounds violates the freedom to practice your own religion as per the 1st Amendment which in turn MAY BE a violation of Due Process.

[Grenartia]

The 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection under the law. Since marriage is a legal construct in the United States it is a legitimate and logical argument to say that by denying homosexual couples the right to have their legitimate marriage recognized by the Federal Government denies them that equal protection.

The 9th Amendment states that there are rights not expressly remunerated in the Constitution; most people take this to include the rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, which is itself NOT a legal document but it is an article of intent to form a new government dedicated to protecting the rights of the governed and not of the governing. The DoI makes mention of three all inclusive rights, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and even if one believes that those are the only three rights that exist outside the ones remunerated in the constitution two of those three (liberty and the pursuit of happiness) include getting married to whomever you want. By denying people the right to marry the person they want to the Federal Government is denying them their 'other/un-enumerated' rights under the 9th amendment.

Those are two legitimate legal reasons not including religion as to why Constitutional Marriage bans should not be possible and why laws such as DOMA should not have a leg to stand on. Adding strength and credence to those two arguments is the 5th Amendment's due process clause; some argue that by denying equal protection and/or those rights which are not expressly enumerated you are denying people their due process of the law.

Another argument which involves religion is based around the 1st Amendment which grants people the freedom to practice the religion of their choice. If Marriage is wholly a religious construct as opposed to a legal one than by choosing to recognize some marriages over others the Federal Government is once again guilty of violating its own legal framework by showing preference to religions that define marriage in a single narrow way (man and woman) and claiming marriages counter to that are not legitimate - this is religious favoritism and a clear violation of the Constitution.

So in review of this pretty big (for me) post.

1. Banning homosexual marriage on the grounds that it is illegitimate in the eyes of the Fed is a violation of Equal Protection under the 14th Amendment which in turn MAY BE a violation of Due Process.

2. Banning homosexual marriage because it is gross is a violation of the 9th Amendment which in turn MAY BE a violation of Due Process.

3. Banning homosexual marriage on religious grounds violates the freedom to practice your own religion as per the 1st Amendment which in turn MAY BE a violation of Due Process.

I want to marry you for this post.

[SaintB]

The 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection under the law. Since marriage is a legal construct in the United States it is a legitimate and logical argument to say that by denying homosexual couples the right to have their legitimate marriage recognized by the Federal Government denies them that equal protection.

The 9th Amendment states that there are rights not expressly remunerated in the Constitution; most people take this to include the rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, which is itself NOT a legal document but it is an article of intent to form a new government dedicated to protecting the rights of the governed and not of the governing. The DoI makes mention of three all inclusive rights, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and even if one believes that those are the only three rights that exist outside the ones remunerated in the constitution two of those three (liberty and the pursuit of happiness) include getting married to whomever you want. By denying people the right to marry the person they want to the Federal Government is denying them their 'other/un-enumerated' rights under the 9th amendment.

Those are two legitimate legal reasons not including religion as to why Constitutional Marriage bans should not be possible and why laws such as DOMA should not have a leg to stand on. Adding strength and credence to those two arguments is the 5th Amendment's due process clause; some argue that by denying equal protection and/or those rights which are not expressly enumerated you are denying people their due process of the law.

Another argument which involves religion is based around the 1st Amendment which grants people the freedom to practice the religion of their choice. If Marriage is wholly a religious construct as opposed to a legal one than by choosing to recognize some marriages over others the Federal Government is once again guilty of violating its own legal framework by showing preference to religions that define marriage in a single narrow way (man and woman) and claiming marriages counter to that are not legitimate - this is religious favoritism and a clear violation of the Constitution.

So in review of this pretty big (for me) post.

1. Banning homosexual marriage on the grounds that it is illegitimate in the eyes of the Fed is a violation of Equal Protection under the 14th Amendment which in turn MAY BE a violation of Due Process.

2. Banning homosexual marriage because it is gross is a violation of the 9th Amendment which in turn MAY BE a violation of Due Process.

3. Banning homosexual marriage on religious grounds violates the freedom to practice your own religion as per the 1st Amendment which in turn MAY BE a violation of Due Process.

I want to marry you for this post.

I wholly expect that I'll come back to find my post torn to shreds by someone whose much better at this stuff than I am. Also it would take about 2 years of dinner and drinks first but thank you anyway .

[Takaram]

In Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court ruled that a marriage ban based upon racial grounds was an unconstitutional violation of the 14th Amendment. The arguments against same-sex marriage are only semantically different and equally groundless, so shouldn't a similar principle apply as far as constitutionality goes? Apparently several federal judges agree. In Perry v. Brown, now two federal courts have ruled that Prop 8 violates the same clause.

[United German Citizens]

"Marriage is legalized and administered by the state"

Marriage is not legalized or administered by the state or federal government. At the time of the writing of the American Constitution, marriage was administered and sanctioned by the church - whatever church you chose - and was a convenant between a man, woman, and God. Government officials, like judges, could perform a civil ceremony, to bind to people, but it did NOT have any religious basis.

Many of those who oppose gay marriage do so because the word "marriage" implies a covenant between the couple and God.

When you get married, you get a marriage license. That license is given by the government, not the or a church or religious organization. You pay your forty dollars or so to the government, not the church. Marriage is, was, and forever will be a governmental program, not a religious event.

Marriage never was a governmental program. Historically, the privilege of matrimony can only be affirmed by the Church. (Of course whatever the "Church" is depends on your location at the time) We see this trend since the earliest of times. So I believe your first point is false.

Now whether marriage is and forever will be dictated by the government is academic. You can't see what may happen in the future, neither can I. So please, don't make such a variable influenced topic a statement of infallibility, it only makes you seem unwise & pretentious.

[Ceannairceach]

When you get married, you get a marriage license. That license is given by the government, not the or a church or religious organization. You pay your forty dollars or so to the government, not the church. Marriage is, was, and forever will be a governmental program, not a religious event.

Marriage never was a governmental program. Historically, the privilege of matrimony can only be affirmed by the Church. (Of course whatever the "Church" is depends on your location at the time) We see this trend since the earliest of times. So I believe your first point is false.

Now whether marriage is and forever will be dictated by the government is academic. You can't see what may happen in the future, neither can I. So please, don't make such a variable influenced topic a statement of infallibility, it only makes you seem unwise & pretentious.

That is a falsehood. The idea of marriage extends back to Rome, where it was a civil union rather than a religious one, and far beyond, when it was more of an economic transaction than a societal one. Thus, your first point is false. Marriage was only (barely) made religious during the rise of Christianity in Europe. Also known as "not eternally so". Also, you blatently ignore the secular marriages found in the Eastern world.

As apposed to stating falsehoods that have no basis in reality, despite evidence to the contrary? How quaint.

[United German Citizens]

So this has been on my mind for a very long time, I am a supporter of the homosexual community, and many of my family members, and friends are homosexual in nature. So through legal studies as a kid during my high school and middle school years, I have been researching, and investigating. I wanted to bring it to nation states to some of the better debate groups on the internet.

So my case is a simple stature of the following;

In the bill of rights (the first ten amendments to the constitution), it states there should be freedom of religion, and all that babble, we all know it and mostly understand it. Though, everytime I hear about the homosexual issue come up, I hear politicians, major news groups, and others pick a side towards the bible. Though times are changing rapidly towards the view of homosexual marriage, there is still a bible christianty bias in the United States.

Therefore in my arguement, is it illegal for any state, or even the United States government based on behalf of their constitution by their fore-fathers to make Homosexual Marriage illegal, when Marriage is legalized and administered by the state?

Is it a crime for the government to keep this issue illegal?

My point is that the constution even states a freedom of religion, and etc, etc, etc. So when you base your opinion, and even in many court cases it has been proven that the separation of church and state is prominant, on this issue, why is that still the case? My home state, Maine is putting this issue on the ballot, and with a large elderly community and anti-homosexual community in the state, this bill will likely pass by a short margine, or fail in a tie.

My final question is, can someone gain support and take legal action in a law suit against a state for violation of constitutional rights?

There is such a thing as a secular argument against gay marriage, therefore the idea that all arguments for banning it are anti-constitutional is wrong.
Anyway, what makes something unconstitutional is the action itself, not the justifications behind it.
I think you would have a better argument from the point of view of the declaration of independence.
"Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, equality under the law".
By banning gay marriage, you are denying homosexuals equal liberty and ability to pursue happiness.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

Now where in the Preamble does "equality under the law" appear. So unless your mistaken or you objectively placed that their, that phrase is of no consequence pertaining to the Preamble.

But anyway, "equality under the Law" clearly states that every person, man, women, or child, is equal under the current, written Law. If it is unbeknownst to you, the United States Federal Government does not recognize homosexual relationship as "marriage". It does recognize matrimony for opposite-sex couples. So that argument can be made that since the Law sees that homosexual relationships are not marriage, it is not legally possible to deny them the equality of marriage, when they do not have it to begin with.

Next, you state that denying them marriage obstructs their pursuit of happiness. This is false, because the Preamble clearly states that a person has the right to "pursue happiness". According to the Merriam-Websters dictionary it means to "follow or chase something with the intention of catching it." So to "pursue happiness" clearly means a person has the right to chase and follow what they want. No where does it say they have a right to achieve it, or a right to gain it.

So, lets sum up.
Your first point does not appear in the Preamble, so it is moot. But even if it did, it would be violated under current circumstances

Your second point presumes that a person had a right to gain their happiness or has a right to happiness. This is false, as a person has the right to pursue happiness. Their is no guarantee.

[Grenartia]

There is such a thing as a secular argument against gay marriage, therefore the idea that all arguments for banning it are anti-constitutional is wrong.
Anyway, what makes something unconstitutional is the action itself, not the justifications behind it.
I think you would have a better argument from the point of view of the declaration of independence.
"Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, equality under the law".
By banning gay marriage, you are denying homosexuals equal liberty and ability to pursue happiness.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

Now where in the Preamble does "equality under the law" appear. So unless your mistaken or you objectively placed that their, that phrase is of no consequence pertaining to the Preamble.

But anyway, "equality under the Law" clearly states that every person, man, women, or child, is equal under the current, written Law. If it is unbeknownst to you, the United States Federal Government does not recognize homosexual relationship as "marriage". It does recognize matrimony for opposite-sex couples. So that argument can be made that since the Law sees that homosexual relationships are not marriage, it is not legally possible to deny them the equality of marriage, when they do not have it to begin with.

Next, you state that denying them marriage obstructs their pursuit of happiness. This is false, because the Preamble clearly states that a person has the right to "pursue happiness". According to the Merriam-Websters dictionary it means to "follow or chase something with the intention of catching it." So to "pursue happiness" clearly means a person has the right to chase and follow what they want. No where does it say they have a right to achieve it, or a right to gain it.

So, lets sum up.
1. Your first point does not appear in the Preamble, so it is moot. But even if it did, it would be violated under current circumstances

2. Your second point presumes that a person had a right to gain their happiness or has a right to happiness. This is false, as a person has the right to pursue happiness. Their is no guarantee.

1. Since when did something have to appear in the Preamble to be a legitimate legal term? IIRC, equality under the law was established in rulings involving the 14th Amendment and blacks in the South.

2. That may be the case, but LGBTs don't have the legal ability to marry people of the same sex. This places an obstacle in the path of their pursuit of happiness. All legalizing SSM will do is remove that obstacle.

[United States of Natan]

to answer your question, murray dynasty, yes, it would be completely unconstitutional to ban homosexuality or gay marrage. thisis because the 1st amenment protects freedom of speech, expression, and religion. because it protects expression, and homosexuality can be considered expression, they cannot make it illegal. because it protects freedom of religion, that means not everyone is christian, including myself. so, while the christian bible says it is wrong, not everyone's sacred text says it is wrong, so making it illegal can be considered against freedom of religion, and therefore unconstitutional. finally, the constitution also decrees the separation of church and state, so banning it can be considered a connection between church and state, and, once more, unconstitutional. I hope this explaination makes you a wiser and more knowledgable person, which, I am sure you already are.

p.s. telegram me if youu win your lawsuit!