Actually, I was savoring the moment before I demolish you once again, by pointing out that you have, once again, constructed your argument upon "rayfacts," which are well known to be false.

In regards to your attempt to induce the reader to conclude that Bush is, for lack of better term, pandering by opposing gay marriage, you have not argued a single point to support your premise. Instead, you have argued the constitutional grounds on which a prohibition should or should not exist.

Unfortunately for you, your constitutional argument rests on fallacies.

You have argued that a Judge is constitutionally empowered to interpret the "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness clause" of the US Constitution to judicially impose gay marriage.

There is, in fact, no such clause. Further, the phrase itself appears nowhere in the Constitution.

Since the phrase does not appear in the constitution, your argument, again, fails.

It would be tempting to suggest that, if you spent half as much time trying to research your arguments for factual accuracy, and constructing your points, as you do whining about "unfairness" and spamming forums when you don't get your way, you might not embarrass yourself quite as often.

However, since your "rayfacts" provide no shortage of amusement to the rest of us, and your arguments tend to make the rest of us look all the smarter, I won't.

So...any other reasons why you think the federal government has no legitimate basis to consider the question of gay marriage