Why the 14th Amendment Can’t Possibly Require Same-Sex Marriage

[Faun]

You do NOT have to love somebody to get married. Your argument is analogous to Mary saying you need to bear children to get married

No, plenty of straight heterosexual couples get married and then learn to hate each other, some even have children out of lust turned to hate. It happens, marriage is being perverted (no pun intended) all the time by straights and now gays think all you need is a turkey baster or adopt. No, not buying it. No. it is getting weird here. I am beginning to wonder about gay marriage if even straights don't take it seriously anymore.

Still no answer ...

How is your ability to be legally married by the state to the person you love equal to that of a gay person who is not legally allowed to marry the person they love?

You said they're equal -- I'm searching for equality here ... but you won't answer ... ?

Who are you asking ?

Mary, the person to whom I posted. She claimed homosexuals are being treated "equally" as heterosexuals.

Given such a claim, I seek her ability to rationally explain how they're equal when she can legally marry the person she loves but a gay person can't.

She refuses to answer. Whether she realizes it or not, her refusal to answer, answers for her. Her refusal to answer informs me she can't rationally explain how they're equal because they're not actually equal, despite her desolate claim to the contrary.

The answer to that question is simple....
Marriage is a specific contract between a man and a woman. If no man may marry another man, then there is no violation of rights because marriage is a specified contract being between a man and a woman. Same sex couples should be allowed to exercise their legal right to contract a civil union that would be equivalent to a marriage contract, which is a contract between a man and a woman, only theirs would be a contract between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, which simply is not a marriage contract by definition, yet can be every bit as binding and recognizable.

If it's not marriage, it's not the same.

If it's not the same, it's not equal.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

No, plenty of straight heterosexual couples get married and then learn to hate each other, some even have children out of lust turned to hate. It happens, marriage is being perverted (no pun intended) all the time by straights and now gays think all you need is a turkey baster or adopt. No, not buying it. No. it is getting weird here. I am beginning to wonder about gay marriage if even straights don't take it seriously anymore.

Still no answer ...

How is your ability to be legally married by the state to the person you love equal to that of a gay person who is not legally allowed to marry the person they love?

You said they're equal -- I'm searching for equality here ... but you won't answer ... ?

Who are you asking ?

Mary, the person to whom I posted. She claimed homosexuals are being treated "equally" as heterosexuals.

Given such a claim, I seek her ability to rationally explain how they're equal when she can legally marry the person she loves but a gay person can't.

She refuses to answer. Whether she realizes it or not, her refusal to answer, answers for her. Her refusal to answer informs me she can't rationally explain how they're equal because they're not actually equal, despite her desolate claim to the contrary.

The answer to that question is simple....
Marriage is a specific contract between a man and a woman. If no man may marry another man, then there is no violation of rights because marriage is a specified contract being between a man and a woman. Same sex couples should be allowed to exercise their legal right to contract a civil union that would be equivalent to a marriage contract, which is a contract between a man and a woman, only theirs would be a contract between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, which simply is not a marriage contract by definition, yet can be every bit as binding and recognizable.

What makes heterosexual marriage a right?

MArriage is a right. WTF is heterosexual marriage? Is there a hetero contract? Stop being manipulated into bolstering the other side's argument when you use their framing

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

There is no infringement, that is why they have the right to contract a civil union between themselves professing their lifelong commitment to one another, however a marriage is a specific contract between a man and a woman. The same commitment , and rights may be achieved without refi fining a marriage contract.

The Court has stated on numerous occasions that marriage is a basic right. As such, denying two people that right because of who they are will be ruled unConstitutional.

People like you can reframe and misrepresent all you want. In the end you will wake up to the fact you have been wrong all along

Are you prepared to answer yet? Why do you think marriage is a fundamental right?

Who has argued that as a legal argument in court? It may be an argument to back things up but no one I've heard of is arguing it as a legal point.

people like you do more harm than good

the greatest harm is often done by those professing to do good

 

[Faun]

Nobody here is wishing to harm Homosexuals. Not allowing them to marry doesn't deprive them of human rights or hurt them in any way. Phony arguments aside. there isn't any NEED to allow homosexual marriage. It's a red herring. A false argument. Bullshit, not buying it.

Of course it harms them. It treats them differently. That is harmful no matter who you are.

And it deprives them of inalienable rights the government is tasked with protecting.

 

[Faun]

Still no answer ...

How is your ability to be legally married by the state to the person you love equal to that of a gay person who is not legally allowed to marry the person they love?

You said they're equal -- I'm searching for equality here ... but you won't answer ... ?

Who are you asking ?

Mary, the person to whom I posted. She claimed homosexuals are being treated "equally" as heterosexuals.

Given such a claim, I seek her ability to rationally explain how they're equal when she can legally marry the person she loves but a gay person can't.

She refuses to answer. Whether she realizes it or not, her refusal to answer, answers for her. Her refusal to answer informs me she can't rationally explain how they're equal because they're not actually equal, despite her desolate claim to the contrary.

The answer to that question is simple....
Marriage is a specific contract between a man and a woman. If no man may marry another man, then there is no violation of rights because marriage is a specified contract being between a man and a woman. Same sex couples should be allowed to exercise their legal right to contract a civil union that would be equivalent to a marriage contract, which is a contract between a man and a woman, only theirs would be a contract between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, which simply is not a marriage contract by definition, yet can be every bit as binding and recognizable.

What makes heterosexual marriage a right?

MArriage is a right. WTF is heterosexual marriage? Is there a hetero contract? Stop being manipulated into bolstering the other side's argument when you use their framing

Sorry, you don't get to tell me how to argue my points.

Hell, you won't even defend your own. You still refuse to answer -- why do you think marriage is a fundamental right?

 

[James Everett]

Thank goodness it will be vetted experts making the decision instead of random posters on internet message boards.

Liberal logic: Nine anointed men and women in robes are allowed to pretend that something that never existed in the Constitution should be the law of the land as they go against the great unwashed.

The founder's were so dumb huh?

No the founders' were not "dumb" however from among the founders' came the rats/ratifiers who were unhappy with the Articles of Confederation because the central body did not hold enough power under that wholly federal system, therefore, those who sought to extend centralized authority devised a new CONstitution to consolidate the States under a wholly national system of government in order to establish an authority over the individual citizen, and an indefinite supremacy over all persons, and things.
Such is the need for extended fictional jurisdiction which the fools beg to grant to the national government.

How can you argue that the Constitution establishes more authority over the individual citizen; while pointing out how people are petitioning the courts, which you claim empower the government and your proclaimed imposed limitations on peoples' individual rights -- when the people are seeking legal redress to their claim that the government is infringing on their individual liberties? You don't get to eat your cake and have it too.

Again, you misunderstand, and I feel I must be posting beyond your understanding. It is a matter of segueing the correct case in order to achieve the legal remedy being sought. It is being incorrectly argued to the advantage of centralized government in granting it further fictional jurisdiction and authority over our private lives. The case should be argued not under the 14th amendment, and the right to re-define a marriage contract, but rather the constitutional right to contract a civil union between same sex couples that grant them the equal treatment of a man and a woman who contract a marriage. The way this is being argued is all wrong and does nothing but establish further fictional jurisdiction to your SCOTUS, and expanded power to a central authority over the individual citizen. Does this explain action help your understanding?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Who are you asking ?

Mary, the person to whom I posted. She claimed homosexuals are being treated "equally" as heterosexuals.

Given such a claim, I seek her ability to rationally explain how they're equal when she can legally marry the person she loves but a gay person can't.

She refuses to answer. Whether she realizes it or not, her refusal to answer, answers for her. Her refusal to answer informs me she can't rationally explain how they're equal because they're not actually equal, despite her desolate claim to the contrary.

The answer to that question is simple....
Marriage is a specific contract between a man and a woman. If no man may marry another man, then there is no violation of rights because marriage is a specified contract being between a man and a woman. Same sex couples should be allowed to exercise their legal right to contract a civil union that would be equivalent to a marriage contract, which is a contract between a man and a woman, only theirs would be a contract between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, which simply is not a marriage contract by definition, yet can be every bit as binding and recognizable.

What makes heterosexual marriage a right?

MArriage is a right. WTF is heterosexual marriage? Is there a hetero contract? Stop being manipulated into bolstering the other side's argument when you use their framing

Sorry, you don't get to tell me how to argue my points.

Hell, you won't even defend your own. You still refuse to answer -- why do you think marriage is a fundamental right?

Of course I get to criticize you as the idiot you are. What, you hate free speech now?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Nobody here is wishing to harm Homosexuals. Not allowing them to marry doesn't deprive them of human rights or hurt them in any way. Phony arguments aside. there isn't any NEED to allow homosexual marriage. It's a red herring. A false argument. Bullshit, not buying it.

Of course it harms them. It treats them differently. That is harmful no matter who you are.

And it deprives them of inalienable rights the government is tasked with protecting.

Now you're arguing inalienable rights?

 

[James Everett]

Nobody here is wishing to harm Homosexuals. Not allowing them to marry doesn't deprive them of human rights or hurt them in any way. Phony arguments aside. there isn't any NEED to allow homosexual marriage. It's a red herring. A false argument. Bullshit, not buying it.

Of course it harms them. It treats them differently. That is harmful no matter who you are.

And it deprives them of inalienable rights the government is tasked with protecting.

Again, we are all treated differently when it comes to sex. Separate sex restrooms, men going topless in public, while women cannot, etc. redefining a specific contract such as a marriage contract which is between a man and a woman, is not a fundamental right, such rights may be achieved via the right to contract a civil union,

 

[Faun]

Thank goodness it will be vetted experts making the decision instead of random posters on internet message boards.

Liberal logic: Nine anointed men and women in robes are allowed to pretend that something that never existed in the Constitution should be the law of the land as they go against the great unwashed.

The founder's were so dumb huh?

No the founders' were not "dumb" however from among the founders' came the rats/ratifiers who were unhappy with the Articles of Confederation because the central body did not hold enough power under that wholly federal system, therefore, those who sought to extend centralized authority devised a new CONstitution to consolidate the States under a wholly national system of government in order to establish an authority over the individual citizen, and an indefinite supremacy over all persons, and things.
Such is the need for extended fictional jurisdiction which the fools beg to grant to the national government.

How can you argue that the Constitution establishes more authority over the individual citizen; while pointing out how people are petitioning the courts, which you claim empower the government and your proclaimed imposed limitations on peoples' individual rights -- when the people are seeking legal redress to their claim that the government is infringing on their individual liberties? You don't get to eat your cake and have it too.

Again, you misunderstand, and I feel I must be posting beyond your understanding. It is a matter of segueing the correct case in order to achieve the legal remedy being sought. It is being incorrectly argued to the advantage of centralized government in granting it further fictional jurisdiction and authority over our private lives. The case should be argued not under the 14th amendment, and the right to re-define a marriage contract, but rather the constitutional right to contract a civil union between same sex couples that grant them the equal treatment of a man and a woman who contract a marriage. The way this is being argued is all wrong and does nothing but establish further fictional jurisdiction to your SCOTUS, and expanded power to a central authority over the individual citizen. Does this explain action help your understanding?

It helps me understand you are completely wrong. They absolutely should not be seeking the jurisdiction limiting them to be classified differently than others. They are correctly seeking to be treated equally under the law. But you were claiming they are giving the government more power to limit individual liberties; when in fact, they are seeking increased individual liberties. Ironically, you're the one proposing an infringement upon their individual liberties.

 

[Faun]

Nobody here is wishing to harm Homosexuals. Not allowing them to marry doesn't deprive them of human rights or hurt them in any way. Phony arguments aside. there isn't any NEED to allow homosexual marriage. It's a red herring. A false argument. Bullshit, not buying it.

Of course it harms them. It treats them differently. That is harmful no matter who you are.

And it deprives them of inalienable rights the government is tasked with protecting.

Now you're arguing inalienable rights?

No, I'm defending them.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

There is no infringement, that is why they have the right to contract a civil union between themselves professing their lifelong commitment to one another, however a marriage is a specific contract between a man and a woman. The same commitment , and rights may be achieved without refi fining a marriage contract.

The Court has stated on numerous occasions that marriage is a basic right. As such, denying two people that right because of who they are will be ruled unConstitutional.

People like you can reframe and misrepresent all you want. In the end you will wake up to the fact you have been wrong all along

Are you prepared to answer yet? Why do you think marriage is a fundamental right?

Who has argued that as a legal argument in court? It may be an argument to back things up but no one I've heard of is arguing it as a legal point.

people like you do more harm than good

the greatest harm is often done by those professing to do good

Liberal logic: Nine anointed men and women in robes are allowed to pretend that something that never existed in the Constitution should be the law of the land as they go against the great unwashed.

The founder's were so dumb huh?

No the founders' were not "dumb" however from among the founders' came the rats/ratifiers who were unhappy with the Articles of Confederation because the central body did not hold enough power under that wholly federal system, therefore, those who sought to extend centralized authority devised a new CONstitution to consolidate the States under a wholly national system of government in order to establish an authority over the individual citizen, and an indefinite supremacy over all persons, and things.
Such is the need for extended fictional jurisdiction which the fools beg to grant to the national government.

How can you argue that the Constitution establishes more authority over the individual citizen; while pointing out how people are petitioning the courts, which you claim empower the government and your proclaimed imposed limitations on peoples' individual rights -- when the people are seeking legal redress to their claim that the government is infringing on their individual liberties? You don't get to eat your cake and have it too.

Again, you misunderstand, and I feel I must be posting beyond your understanding. It is a matter of segueing the correct case in order to achieve the legal remedy being sought. It is being incorrectly argued to the advantage of centralized government in granting it further fictional jurisdiction and authority over our private lives. The case should be argued not under the 14th amendment, and the right to re-define a marriage contract, but rather the constitutional right to contract a civil union between same sex couples that grant them the equal treatment of a man and a woman who contract a marriage. The way this is being argued is all wrong and does nothing but establish further fictional jurisdiction to your SCOTUS, and expanded power to a central authority over the individual citizen. Does this explain action help your understanding?

It helps me understand you are completely wrong. They absolutely should not be seeking the jurisdiction limiting them to be classified differently than others. They are correctly seeking to be treated equally under the law. But you were claiming they are giving the government more power to limit individual liberties; when in fact, they are seeking increased individual liberties. Ironically, you're the one proposing an infringement upon their individual liberties.

When gays ask to be protected as a class, they are arguing they are different. Gawd, you need to pay more attention and speak/write less

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Nobody here is wishing to harm Homosexuals. Not allowing them to marry doesn't deprive them of human rights or hurt them in any way. Phony arguments aside. there isn't any NEED to allow homosexual marriage. It's a red herring. A false argument. Bullshit, not buying it.

Of course it harms them. It treats them differently. That is harmful no matter who you are.

And it deprives them of inalienable rights the government is tasked with protecting.

Now you're arguing inalienable rights?

No, I'm defending them.

that would lose in a court of law. you're arguing ideology and politics, not law

 

[MaryL]

Who the hell are the vetted experts, anyway? Screw that. Common sense. People that can never have babies want all the sanctuary of childbearing marriage because they mistake narcissism for love. I don't know were to go with that. Having kids isn't about sexing each other up and a turkey baster and adoption, if you don't get it, you are lost.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

We are in the Constitution Forum, NOT the Politics Forum

 

[Faun]

There is no infringement, that is why they have the right to contract a civil union between themselves professing their lifelong commitment to one another, however a marriage is a specific contract between a man and a woman. The same commitment , and rights may be achieved without refi fining a marriage contract.

The Court has stated on numerous occasions that marriage is a basic right. As such, denying two people that right because of who they are will be ruled unConstitutional.

People like you can reframe and misrepresent all you want. In the end you will wake up to the fact you have been wrong all along

Are you prepared to answer yet? Why do you think marriage is a fundamental right?

Who has argued that as a legal argument in court? It may be an argument to back things up but no one I've heard of is arguing it as a legal point.

people like you do more harm than good

the greatest harm is often done by those professing to do good

The founder's were so dumb huh?

No the founders' were not "dumb" however from among the founders' came the rats/ratifiers who were unhappy with the Articles of Confederation because the central body did not hold enough power under that wholly federal system, therefore, those who sought to extend centralized authority devised a new CONstitution to consolidate the States under a wholly national system of government in order to establish an authority over the individual citizen, and an indefinite supremacy over all persons, and things.
Such is the need for extended fictional jurisdiction which the fools beg to grant to the national government.

How can you argue that the Constitution establishes more authority over the individual citizen; while pointing out how people are petitioning the courts, which you claim empower the government and your proclaimed imposed limitations on peoples' individual rights -- when the people are seeking legal redress to their claim that the government is infringing on their individual liberties? You don't get to eat your cake and have it too.

Again, you misunderstand, and I feel I must be posting beyond your understanding. It is a matter of segueing the correct case in order to achieve the legal remedy being sought. It is being incorrectly argued to the advantage of centralized government in granting it further fictional jurisdiction and authority over our private lives. The case should be argued not under the 14th amendment, and the right to re-define a marriage contract, but rather the constitutional right to contract a civil union between same sex couples that grant them the equal treatment of a man and a woman who contract a marriage. The way this is being argued is all wrong and does nothing but establish further fictional jurisdiction to your SCOTUS, and expanded power to a central authority over the individual citizen. Does this explain action help your understanding?

It helps me understand you are completely wrong. They absolutely should not be seeking the jurisdiction limiting them to be classified differently than others. They are correctly seeking to be treated equally under the law. But you were claiming they are giving the government more power to limit individual liberties; when in fact, they are seeking increased individual liberties. Ironically, you're the one proposing an infringement upon their individual liberties.

When gays ask to be protected as a class, they are arguing they are different. Gawd, you need to pay more attention and speak/write less

Ok, so we've established you can't answer a simple question ... now you're playing with strawmen. I didn't say anything about them seeking protection as a class. I said they are seeking the same protection of their inalienable rights that straight people have. That doesn't make them a special class -- that makes their rights equal under the law.

And again I ask -- why do you think marriage is an inalienable right?

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Dante

Just a bunch of sloppy half ass trolling all over this thread by you. People make arguments and all you can come back with multiple posts is random insults about people hating America and the Constitution. You're a gd disgrace to your trade.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

The Court has stated on numerous occasions that marriage is a basic right. As such, denying two people that right because of who they are will be ruled unConstitutional.

People like you can reframe and misrepresent all you want. In the end you will wake up to the fact you have been wrong all along

Are you prepared to answer yet? Why do you think marriage is a fundamental right?

Who has argued that as a legal argument in court? It may be an argument to back things up but no one I've heard of is arguing it as a legal point.

people like you do more harm than good

the greatest harm is often done by those professing to do good

No the founders' were not "dumb" however from among the founders' came the rats/ratifiers who were unhappy with the Articles of Confederation because the central body did not hold enough power under that wholly federal system, therefore, those who sought to extend centralized authority devised a new CONstitution to consolidate the States under a wholly national system of government in order to establish an authority over the individual citizen, and an indefinite supremacy over all persons, and things.
Such is the need for extended fictional jurisdiction which the fools beg to grant to the national government.

How can you argue that the Constitution establishes more authority over the individual citizen; while pointing out how people are petitioning the courts, which you claim empower the government and your proclaimed imposed limitations on peoples' individual rights -- when the people are seeking legal redress to their claim that the government is infringing on their individual liberties? You don't get to eat your cake and have it too.

Again, you misunderstand, and I feel I must be posting beyond your understanding. It is a matter of segueing the correct case in order to achieve the legal remedy being sought. It is being incorrectly argued to the advantage of centralized government in granting it further fictional jurisdiction and authority over our private lives. The case should be argued not under the 14th amendment, and the right to re-define a marriage contract, but rather the constitutional right to contract a civil union between same sex couples that grant them the equal treatment of a man and a woman who contract a marriage. The way this is being argued is all wrong and does nothing but establish further fictional jurisdiction to your SCOTUS, and expanded power to a central authority over the individual citizen. Does this explain action help your understanding?

It helps me understand you are completely wrong. They absolutely should not be seeking the jurisdiction limiting them to be classified differently than others. They are correctly seeking to be treated equally under the law. But you were claiming they are giving the government more power to limit individual liberties; when in fact, they are seeking increased individual liberties. Ironically, you're the one proposing an infringement upon their individual liberties.

When gays ask to be protected as a class, they are arguing they are different. Gawd, you need to pay more attention and speak/write less

Ok, so we've established you can't answer a simple question ... now you're playing with strawmen. I didn't say anything about them seeking protection as a class. I said they are seeking the same protection of their inalienable rights that straight people have. That doesn't make them a special class -- that makes their rights equal under the law.

And again I ask -- why do you think marriage is an inalienable right?

Don't ask Dante shit repeatedly. I've seen him ignore questions time and time again when he gets in a corner. He's only here to throw out noise. Do us all a favor and stop feeding the fucking troll.

 

[Faun]

Nobody here is wishing to harm Homosexuals. Not allowing them to marry doesn't deprive them of human rights or hurt them in any way. Phony arguments aside. there isn't any NEED to allow homosexual marriage. It's a red herring. A false argument. Bullshit, not buying it.

Of course it harms them. It treats them differently. That is harmful no matter who you are.

And it deprives them of inalienable rights the government is tasked with protecting.

Now you're arguing inalienable rights?

No, I'm defending them.

that would lose in a court of law. you're arguing ideology and politics, not law

Perhaps. I'm not a lawyer nor do I profess to be one. Regardless, the Constitution is a framework to protect our rights and the government is sworn to uphold it. I can't imagine on what legal basis a court could Constitutionally deny a person their inalienable rights?

 

[James Everett]

Liberal logic: Nine anointed men and women in robes are allowed to pretend that something that never existed in the Constitution should be the law of the land as they go against the great unwashed.

The founder's were so dumb huh?

No the founders' were not "dumb" however from among the founders' came the rats/ratifiers who were unhappy with the Articles of Confederation because the central body did not hold enough power under that wholly federal system, therefore, those who sought to extend centralized authority devised a new CONstitution to consolidate the States under a wholly national system of government in order to establish an authority over the individual citizen, and an indefinite supremacy over all persons, and things.
Such is the need for extended fictional jurisdiction which the fools beg to grant to the national government.

How can you argue that the Constitution establishes more authority over the individual citizen; while pointing out how people are petitioning the courts, which you claim empower the government and your proclaimed imposed limitations on peoples' individual rights -- when the people are seeking legal redress to their claim that the government is infringing on their individual liberties? You don't get to eat your cake and have it too.

Again, you misunderstand, and I feel I must be posting beyond your understanding. It is a matter of segueing the correct case in order to achieve the legal remedy being sought. It is being incorrectly argued to the advantage of centralized government in granting it further fictional jurisdiction and authority over our private lives. The case should be argued not under the 14th amendment, and the right to re-define a marriage contract, but rather the constitutional right to contract a civil union between same sex couples that grant them the equal treatment of a man and a woman who contract a marriage. The way this is being argued is all wrong and does nothing but establish further fictional jurisdiction to your SCOTUS, and expanded power to a central authority over the individual citizen. Does this explain action help your understanding?

It helps me understand you are completely wrong. They absolutely should not be seeking the jurisdiction limiting them to be classified differently than others. They are correctly seeking to be treated equally under the law. But you were claiming they are giving the government more power to limit individual liberties; when in fact, they are seeking increased individual liberties. Ironically, you're the one proposing an infringement upon their individual liberties.

You

Liberal logic: Nine anointed men and women in robes are allowed to pretend that something that never existed in the Constitution should be the law of the land as they go against the great unwashed.

The founder's were so dumb huh?

No the founders' were not "dumb" however from among the founders' came the rats/ratifiers who were unhappy with the Articles of Confederation because the central body did not hold enough power under that wholly federal system, therefore, those who sought to extend centralized authority devised a new CONstitution to consolidate the States under a wholly national system of government in order to establish an authority over the individual citizen, and an indefinite supremacy over all persons, and things.
Such is the need for extended fictional jurisdiction which the fools beg to grant to the national government.

How can you argue that the Constitution establishes more authority over the individual citizen; while pointing out how people are petitioning the courts, which you claim empower the government and your proclaimed imposed limitations on peoples' individual rights -- when the people are seeking legal redress to their claim that the government is infringing on their individual liberties? You don't get to eat your cake and have it too.

Again, you misunderstand, and I feel I must be posting beyond your understanding. It is a matter of segueing the correct case in order to achieve the legal remedy being sought. It is being incorrectly argued to the advantage of centralized government in granting it further fictional jurisdiction and authority over our private lives. The case should be argued not under the 14th amendment, and the right to re-define a marriage contract, but rather the constitutional right to contract a civil union between same sex couples that grant them the equal treatment of a man and a woman who contract a marriage. The way this is being argued is all wrong and does nothing but establish further fictional jurisdiction to your SCOTUS, and expanded power to a central authority over the individual citizen. Does this explain action help your understanding?

It helps me understand you are completely wrong. They absolutely should not be seeking the jurisdiction limiting them to be classified differently than others. They are correctly seeking to be treated equally under the law. But you were claiming they are giving the government more power to limit individual liberties; when in fact, they are seeking increased individual liberties. Ironically, you're the one proposing an infringement upon their individual liberties.

You still don't get it.
Equal treatment is achieved via the right to contract a civil union between same sex partners, not by redefining a separate contract such as a marriage contract which is a contract between a man and a woman. Re-defining a marriage contract creates fictional jurisdiction. Where does this re-defining of a marriage contract end other than allowing your SCOTUS to extend its jurisdiction in defining this new fictional jurisdictions end?
Shall it end with polygamist rights to include that of several wives or husbands? Or that of the incestuous ?
To Where does this new fictional jurisdiction extend? The remedy is simple without the re-definition of a marriage contract, if the proper argument is made wherein your SCOTUS jurisdiction is not extended into further fiction.