You may feel that way but your feelings are largely irrelevant to the functioning of the US political system. There is a thing called a Bill of Rights. The people simply cannot vote to abolish freedom of speech, or to establish a religion.
The question is whether the relevant judicial body thinks the banning of gay marriage violates the Constitution or not. It's a very risky political strategy for gays given the current Supreme Court. It might set back gay civil rights a couple of generations.

__________________
1977 300d 70k--sold 08
1985 300TD 185k+
1984 307d 126k--sold 8/03
1985 409d 65k--sold 06
1984 300SD 315k--daughter's car
1979 300SD 122k--sold 2/11
1999 Fuso FG Expedition Camper
1993 GMC Sierra 6.5 TD 4x4
1982 Bluebird Wanderlodge CAT 3208--Sold 2/13

At last. Some clear thinking. The long term strategy is to get this to the Supreme Court. Maybe two years or more from that today, with a whistle stop at the Ninth Circuit. Given the current court makeup, I would agree it's a risk. Men do die, however. But if the cause is worth fighting (in the courts) for, no point in waiting.

Correct me if I am wrong someone, but is it not true that in every state gay marraige has been on the ballot it has been defeated by the voters? Not that it matters constitutionally, but it does reflect the general mood of the citizens.

You may not have heard about it out there but the NJ Senate (Democratically controlled) just last week failed to get a bill passed approving gay marraige. We already do have a civil union statute for gays and elderly hetero couples, but "it's not working" well enough for those folks.
NJ has been a solid Democratic and generally liberal state. But we have a Rep. Guv coming soon.

Scalia himself stated, as a result of striking down sodomy laws, that if the case ever makes it in front of the court they will have to legalize gay marriage. The State must show a compelling state interest in banning a contract between two individuals - the right to contract is a common law right that goes back to the Magna Carta. If sodomy is not illegal, what "compelling interest" does the state have in banning gay marriage? There is none. Even a conservative court would have a hard time coming up with one that would stick. The precedents are in Utah polygamy cases from back in the 1880's. The state of Utah was able to ban polygamy because it claimed a compelling state interest in preventing a man from siring dozens of children that he would not be able to support, meaning the tax payers would get stuck with the bill, and a compelling interest in preventing a woman from marrying multiple men because history has shown this only leads to violence as men tend to kill each other over women quite frequently, meaning that it was a threat to the public order and a disturbance of the peace. In the case of men and women marrying first-degree relatives, The State has a compelling interest to prevent the spread of genetic defects that again the taxpayers would have to pick up the tab for in warehousing the offspring, and now gay marriage opponents, it's your turn - what exactly is the compelling state interest in banning gay marriage? I have asked that question over and over to conservatives and have yet to get one answer that would stand a test against the Equal Protection Clause. Come on, just one reason. So far, the compelling reason is the one that motivates voters to vote in elections to deny other people's rights: rank, grotesque prejudice.

Inability to sire cannon fodder to fill future ranks.

Seriously though. There's no reason. It's a non issue to my mind.

- Peter.

__________________
2021 Chevrolet Spark
Formerly...
2000 GMC Sonoma
1981 240D 4spd stick. 347000 miles. Deceased Feb 14 2021
2002 Kia Rio. Worst crap on four wheels
1981 240D 4spd stick. 389000 miles.
1984 123 200
1979 116 280S
1972 Cadillac Sedan DeVille
1971 108 280S