As far as the Fourteenth Amendment is concerned, are you relying on "abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens," "due process," or "equal protection?" It wouldn't seem that denial of same-sex marriage any more violates these Fourteenth Amendment protections than, say, denial of marriage to a first cousin or denial of marriage to two or more spouses.

Having again embarrassed myself, shown my ignorance, and been contemptuous of the Constitution, I'll withdraw from the field. I'll leave with one observation, though–I'm not your problem. I have no moral or religious objection to gay marriage, and if I were a resident of California, I would have voted against Proposition 8.

I don't get exercised about the issue of gay marriage because, I suppose, I don't have a horse in that particular race. I do get exercised about the invention of new "rights" every time someone's ox gets gored. Roe v. Wade is a good example. The Court acknowledged that there is no right of privacy in the Constitution, then proceeded to discover such a right hidden somewhere in the diaphanous penumbras of the Bill of Rights. I think that's where you have to go to find a right of marriage, regardless of the kind of marriage under discussion.

I'm reluctant to argue this point in a room with a lawyer present, but isn't it true that marriage per se is not mentioned in the Constitution? And that marriage is no more an issue of "life, liberty, and property" than other more physical examples of property that the state has long prohibited citizens to possess? The same is true for life and liberty–get convicted of certain crimes, and sometimes the state will lock you up forever or kill you; get born too late in the cycle, and sometimes you get your brains sucked out and your body dismembered, with no state objections. And so on.

Isn't it true that marriage is more a social institution accepted in common law than it is a right? In many settings, it's a religious practice validated by the state in the form of a contract, which is then legally enforceable. The fact is, the state (or in the U.S., states variously) restrict marriage in all kind of ways. You can't marry relatives of a certain degree, you can't marry non-human creatures, you can't have more than one spouse at a time, you're required to be tested for STDs and licensed before you can do it, you can't be divorced except in a manner prescribed by law, etc. So why is it, then, that in just one category, same-sex marriage, the state can't act?

I'm pro-choice, anti-death penalty, pro-gun control, and neutral about gay marriage. On all of these and many other issues, what's wrong with working within the political system that has served us well for so long? Keep the feds out of it, and let the people of the states decide what they want to permit and prohibit, within the limits specified by the Constitution.

[Kip replies: It never ceases to amaze me how willing some people are to embarrass themselves by so loudly proclaiming their ignorance of, or contempt for, both the plain text and the original meaning of the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments.]