Quote Originally Posted by karl k
From a legal standpoint, that is the root of the arguement. By default, the definition has always been a union between man and woman... not two people. It's this definition that is being challenged. How does the 14th come into play? Directly, it doesn't IMO so long as the definition of marriage stays as it is. But if it were to change, it would set a precidence for discrimination and would force the population to legally accept the ability for gays to marry. Now some will argue that even w/o the change of definition, the law is still discriminatory since it is selective to opposite sex partners only and therefore it is justified to change the defination of marriage. I believe it is this interpretation of the law that some fear will be carried out by the judges instead of by popular vote at the state level.

I think I made a small mistake It should have been 'why wouldn't the equal protection apply'
If state laws has a specific definition, then it is unconstitutional by excluding some sectors, regardless how they define it. And, they have excluded a large segment of th epopulation, or a small segment, doesn't matter.
This is not a popularity contest, what many like and hell with what the few want.
In the not too distant future, all this will be laughed at, how small minded some can be.
All this is because of religion, nothing else.

One only has to look around the palnet and see all the strife caused by it.