Quote:

Uschi said
The founding of the constitution establishes rights and freedom from discrimination/oppression. While the FF ment mostly only white, land-owning males, as history progresses the ideals of our constitution have encompassed all humans, ergo making a form of oppression part of America pisses on the [living] constitution.



But that's not the point.

If you want to argue that the constitution is an "evolving document", that's one thing. I disagree. But at least that argument involves eschewing the original intent of the founders in favor of perceived public policy.

However, if you invoke the founding fathers you are, by necessity, invoking THEIR original intent.

There's is nothing in history to indicate that supporting gay marriage was part of their original intent.

In fact, its more likely that the framers intended marriage to be a something that each state was wholly empowered to regulate as it saw fit.

Even today, in order to get married, you need a license.

The issuance of a state sponsored license tends to indicate that there is no right to marriage. You can't really license a right. Furthermore, the process of licensing, or regulation, by its very nature, involves some form of discrimination, in the sense that involves withholding the license from some, while granting it to others.

As I said, there are legitimate reasons to support gay marriage. But the U.S. constitution is actually one of the weaker ones.