In response to:
The Supreme Court disagrees with you, Tommy.
"...Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man..."
(Loving vs. Virginia)
When 52 percent of California voters passed Proposition 8 in November 2008, Attorney General Jerry Brown said he would defend the measure during the inevitable appeals. Then, as is his fashion, Brown changed his mind.
Ditto Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who twice vetoed same-sex marriage bills passed by the Legislature in deference to California voters who passed an earlier same-sex marriage statute in 2000.
But after Proposition 8 passed, both refused to defend the measure.
This month, after U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional, both Brown and Schwarzenegger urged Walker to lift a stay on his ruling...
Loving said marriage was a right BECAUSE marriage is required for our very existence. This strict definition tells everyone that opposite sex marriage is a requirement in order to meet this standard. Loving also stated specifically that a persons skin color was not sufficient to revoke marriage rights. These two basic premises in the Loving case tells us two things.
Race does not affect the marriage right standard set by Loving.
A persons sex (gender whatever) DOES affect the marriage right standard set by Loving. Same sex couples can not reproduce within the marriage union. Because it does not meet that standard, the right of marriage can be revoked.
Also the BAKER case specifically denies same-sex marriage. SCOTUS...
So this little exercise is in order to stimulate the lawyers, and Wall Streets profits once again for the tourism, and other associated industries that would benefit, not to abide by the "common law" definition of marriage, which would govern here CONSTITUTIONALLY.