Yep, you invoke equal protection to support special preference for minorities by race, citizens by income, and now couples by gender preference.

Leftists are insane.

just the Olbermans and Maddows.

Sad, really.

the article states:

The Fourteenth Amendment was enacted in 1868, shortly after the Union victory in the American Civil War. After the Thirteenth Amendment, which was proposed by Congress and ratified by the states in 1865, had abolished slavery, many ex-Confederate states adopted Black Codes following the war.

These laws severely restricted the power of blacks to hold property and form legally enforceable contracts. They also created harsher criminal penalties for blacks than for whites.[3]

In response to the Black Codes, Congress enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which provided that all those born in the United States were citizens of the United States (this provision was meant to overturn the Supreme Court's decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford), and required that "citizens of every race and color ... [have] full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens."[4]

So it was implemented to protect blacks, not gays.

Marriage isn't a right. It is a record used to establish legitimacy of children and isn't automatically granted to anyone.

Free speech is a right.

Voting is a right.

Freedom to assemble is a right.

Marriage is a social institution that is recorded and regulated and has the function of establishing the legitimacy of genetic children of a couple as heirs.. One cannot marry if one is a minor under a certain age even with guardian's permission. One cannot marry more than one person. One cannot marry one's sister or brother or first cousin in most places. It is not a right.

The rights which are really violated in the case of homosexual couples to equal treatment are also violated for other unmarried couples. The real injustice and violation is in the unequal treatment of couples on the basis of marriage, not failure to grant marriage licenses.

The consitution leaves such things up to the state.

If there is a federal issue at all, it would be that the states should not recognize any marriage,.

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.[10]

Craig:

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.[10]

What does that have to do with whether or not a state recognizes marriages?

What does that have to do with whether or not a state recognizes marriages?

Isn't marriage a public act, record or judicial proceeding?

I got married in Maryland. I don't have to get married again if I move to California or Texas or Florida...as they recognize the marriage.

banning gay marriage has been approved in all 30 states that had it on the ballot.