The idea that the framers did not understand the 14th to create a right to polygamy is further buttressed by a series of Supreme Court rulings that rejected constitutional challenges to anti-polygamy laws. all of those rulings were unanimous, and all affirmed lower court rulings rejecting such challenges.

The same is true for same-sex “marriage”. There is not a single writing from the framers indicating that they believed that the amendment might require legal recognition of same-sex “marriage”.

Further buttressing this point is the rejection of a constitutional amendment that might have created a right to same-sex “marriage”. The year Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810, 93 S. Ct. 37, 34 L.E.2d 65 (1972) was decided, the U.S. began a ten-year debate over the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment. There was considerable debate over whether it would create a right to “marry” someone of the same sex, thus requiring a result opposite of Baker. Compare The Legality of Homosexual Marriage, 82 YALE L.J. 573 (1973) and testimony of Harvard Professor
Paul A. Freund in Hearings on H.J. Res. 35, 208 Before Subcomm. No. 4 of the House Comm. on the Judiciary, 92d Cong., 1st Sess. (1971) (arguing that ERA would create such a right) with e.g.,
118 Cong. Rec. 4389 (daily ed. March 21, 1972) (Sen. Bayh) (arguing it would not)

Furthermore, there are different experiences with state-level ERA’s. While both ERA’s and same-sex “marriages” exist in Washington and Massachusetts, in the former, SSM is merely a statutory privilege subject to subsequent repeal by legislative action, while in the latter it is a constitutional right that can only be repealed by the state’s amendment process. This difference arises from different interpretation of analogous constitutional provisions.

When the ERA was rejected, the U.S. implicitly rejected this ambiguity. It is preposterous to argue that the 14th amendment should be interpreted to create a right to SSM when a stricter amendment that could be interpreted to create such a right was rejected after the Supreme Court decided Baker.

Some cynics among the married have said “why should gays be any happier than the rest of us married folk?”

Hey, I’m very happy to be married! I can’t imagine anyone else who would have put up with me for so long.

According to the GOP supporter, safeguards will be included to prohibit forcing clergy to capitulate.

Beyond the Bible, it’s fascinating that the famous ancient Greek philosopher Plato originally said that opposition to homosexuality was, to paraphrase, something that only Neanderthals (or Plato’s sniping was analogous to people like Obama talking about gun-toting religious folks in the suburbs, or Red America) felt or did. IOW, he sounded exactly like a modern-day liberal. But towards the later half of his life, he changed his tone (for whatever reason) and found homosexuality to be disreputable.

As much as things change, some things never change.

Personally, I find non-religious reasons for rejecting “GLBT” as more telling, widespread or compelling than anything related to a specific religion (the story of Sodom and Lot notwithstanding).

they still chose to sue this woman for standing by her religious beliefs.

They undoubtedly pray at the altar of liberalism, and so their pushy, obstinate politics are as crucial and motivating to them as their homosexuality.

Again, what comes first: Leftist sentiment or other aspects of human behavior, or visa versa?

When you get a chance, would you contribute thoughts on the Mass school policy?

I wonder if that Mass policy is supposed to apply to private schools, including religious, as well.