I didn't vote because there wasn't a choice that jives with reality. Rational justification isn't good enough to take anyone's rights. First there must be a compelling governmental interest and then they have to meet the "strict scrutiny" hurdle, meaning there is no less intrusive alternative method to meet the compelling interest.
Civil unions are a less intrusive method than forced gay marriage.
What rights are taken from you if a gay person gets married?
Don't ask me, ask the States that have chosen not to endorse them. I just gave an example where the courts haven't met the strict scrutiny standard because there are less intrusive ways to accomplish what is being demanded by the faghadist.
States don't have rights. They have powers. People have rights. How are you rights violated if someone else is allowed to be married?
The answer is simple: they aren't. You're completely unaffected. So is anyone else save those getting married (or denied marriage).
There's no 'strict scrutiny' standard in preventing States from violating individual rights.
States have always had the power to set marriage standards and this particular "right" is an invention.
The 'power', huh? Then all talk of the 'strict scrutiny' standard goes out the window. As it applies only to the abrogation of rights of actual people. There is no 'strict scrutiny' standard for state powers. Making your references to it irrelevant. Now that that is settled.....lets move onto your new claims.
States powers are subject to constitutional guarantees.
Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,” Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393.
Windor v. US
And marriage is a constitutionally recognized right. Both are well established precedent.
Show me in the Constitution where the feds are given the power to regulate marriage laws within the States.
Equal protection is the most common basis for overturning state gay marriage bans. So that would be the 14th amendment.
Gays have always had marriage equality with everyone of their gender, now they are demanding something new and special, like I said, an invented right.
The standards restricting marriage must meet constitutional muster as well. Interracial marriage bans applied 'equally' to blacks and whites. But the restriction itself was unconstitutional. Likewise, same sex marriage bans must also meet constitutional standards.
Ironically, this is where the 'strict scrutiny' standard kicks in. Read Romer v. Evans on discrimination against gays.
Why do you folks keep trying to equivocate sexual preferences to race? Sexual preference is not protected by the Constitution or federal law. What's next, a bisexual demanding to marry one of each gender?