I should let this topic go, but I'm wired up. It’s probably the doughnuts.
So, let’s get this clear. It is acceptable for individuals to buy firearms because to prevent them from doing so is overweening state power. Even though firearms can unquestionably used to do bad things, having the state tell you that you can’t have them is worse. Even though it is far from uncommon that children die at home in accidents with firearms, the alternative is worse. OK, great, I’m with you so far.
But it’s OK for the state to tell gays they can’t marry, because a married gay person might at some point be not quite as good a parent as could possibly be hoped. And that’s an entirely appropriate use of state power.
Sorry, lost you there. Conservatives should not be in a big hurry to pat themselves on the back about their intellectual rigour.
(And, yes, I know that the Second Amendment deals with the first situation, while no specific Constitutional amendment deals with the second. That’s true, and completely irrelevant. Legalistic arguments are useful when answering the question “What is legal?“, but have no relevance to the question “What should the law be?” The fact that the legalistic argument against gay marriage is thrown up so early in the debate is one more sign of the intellectual bankruptcy of the arguments against it.)
posted 22:59