"With that in mind here is how you can reply to someone when they ask, 'How do you feel about Gay Marriage?'"
One problem. That is not the phrasing being used. It's all about "equality" as defined by the homosexual "marriage" advocates. To its supporters, the problem is that getting a marriage license is restricted due to gender. That's how they put it.
It's a ridiculous argument considering all men and all women are equally under this same "restriction", especially since Loving. Each man and each woman in this country has the right to marry and be married to one person of the opposite sex who is not an immediate family member. You can't get more equal than that.
Except to homosexual "marriage" advocates. They replace the word "race" with "gender" and that makes so-called homosexual "marriage" bans (which actually define marriage as opposed to actually banning anything) the same as the old interracial marriage bans (which were actual bans, as specified in a statute or regulation, on who could get married). So what is asked isn't how could someone be against homosexual "marriage", it's how could someone be against "equality" as defined by the homosexual "marriage" supporters.
Worse, there are "judges" and "Justices" who accept that ridiculous notion about these "restrictions" and are happy to illegally create the "right" of homosexual "marriage". There are two reasons why "judges" are throwing out these perfectly legitimate laws. And it's all thanks to eight of the 12 previous and current Supreme Court Justices: Kennedy, Breyer, Ginsburg, Stevens, Souter, O'Connor, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Of these, Kennedy is the author of of these reasons.
For the first reason, I am referring to the 1996 Romer v. Evans majority opinion authored by Kennedy. In a nutshell, Kennedy and the majority ruled that homosexuals were a protected class to be treated differently by the law than heterosexuals, similar to affirmative action laws. Worse, they claimed that, like those affirmative action laws, a state law that required other laws in that state to adhere to the Equal Protection Clause was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. It makes no sense whatsoever; in effect, one can paraphrase George W. Bush by saying Romer had to destroy the Equal Protection Clause to "save" the Equal Protection Clause, and to "save" it for homosexuals, for a behavior. On top of that, Kennedy and the majority claimed that it was "animus" towards homosexuals as the reason why the law the majority threw out was passed. That is a lie and a bearing of false witness since sodomy laws were still considered constitutional in 1996 (1986's Bowers v. Hardwick), and the majority did nothing to change that in Romer.
The second reason is United States v. Windor, also authored by Kennedy (he was joined by Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan). Again, Kennedy and the majority committed the sin of bearing false witness against those who passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 1996 by claiming it was passed due to "animus" against homosexuals. This too is a lie since at the time DOMA was passed, sodomy laws were still constitutional and homosexual "marriage" didn't exist anywhere. Not only that, Windsor didn't actually change the definition of marriage to suit homosexuals. The only thing thrown out was Sec. 3 having to do with federal benefits available to married couples in states where homosexual "marriage" did exist; Sec. 2, which says that states where homosexual "marriage" doesn't exist don't have to recognize as married same-sex couples "married" in another state, was actually left in place. But Kennedy worded the opinion in such a way that "judges" are citing the sinful slander in Windsor to throw out perfectly good laws.
In addition, American Christians and other Americans are truly being harmed by homosexuals, losing lawsuits when homosexuals want the government to force Christians into being a part of the sin of "celebrating" engaging in homosexual acts or being forced out of their jobs for wanting to support maintaining the real definition of marriage in the law. Again, this could only have happened because the federal government, which the Supreme Court is a part of, declared that homosexuals are to be treated differently instead of equally.
So the question by homosexual "marriage" advocates isn't homosexual "marriage", but what they call "equality". The response is to hit them with Romer, where a majority of the Supreme Court illegally gave lower federal courts and state courts the power to violate the Equal Protection Clause to grant homosexuals unequal treatment in the law compared with heterosexuals, including the power to redefine the word "marriage" for homosexuals (which was subsequently affirmed in Windsor). Just say it is affirmative action for homosexuals, not equality.
I fear this is all moot anyway since the 2012 election and polls are showing there are enough Americans who are too stupid to care about how their government is promoting sexual deviancy and permissiveness in alignment with the degenerates that are today's cultural leaders.
For my more detailed analysis of these cases, please read on.
Back in the early 1990s, Colorado cities run by "progressives"/regressives/Democrats (Denver, Boulder, and possibly others) started putting through local ordinances that made illegal so-called "discrimination" against homosexuals. I have no knowledge of why these were passed; if the modus operandi of the way "progressives"/regressives/Democrats typically do things, supporters of these laws lobbied for them and
bribed contributed to the campaigns of these Democrats. An amendment to Colorado's Constitution, Amendment 2, was then passed by a 54% to 46% margin. This amendment made sure that Colorado law followed the Equal Protection Clause, that homosexuals would not get these special "rights"; a lawsuit was filed. Eventually hitting the Supreme Court as Romer v. Evans, Justices Kennedy (the author of the majority opinion), O'Connor, Stevens, Souter, Breyer, and Ginsburg threw out Amendment 2. The why is a hoot. They said that an amendment to a state constitution requiring a state's laws to adhere to the Equal Protection Clause violated the Equal Protection Clause. As is typical with many Kennedy-authored opinions, it's based on a lie.
Justice Scalia pointed this out in his excellent dissent, which was joined by then-Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Thomas. At the time Romer was decided in 1996, Bowers v. Hardwick was still on the books, a 1986 case stating that sodomy laws were constitutional (Kennedy would overturn Bowers in 2003's Lawrence v. Texas, citing his Romer opinion from seven years earlier). Since sodomy laws affect homosexuals the most since sodomy is the only way they can have sex, one would think the majority would overturn Bowers. Yet, no such thing occurred, which was what Scalia pointed out.
Scalia then took Kennedy to task for another problem with the majority opinion, that Amendment 2 was passed based on the "'animus' or 'animosity' toward homosexuality". If that was the case, per Scalia, why didn't the majority overturn Bowers since by Kennedy's own reasoning for why Colorado voters passed Amendment 2, those who passed sodomy laws could have done so for similar reasons. And yet, the majority left Bowers in place.
(As an aside, Kennedy and those who join him in these opinions seems to have a "clairvoyance" to know what is in the hearts of those who pass these kinds of laws, a subject which I will return to later.)
And then of course Scalia asked the obvious question, how can a law meant to adhere to the Equal Protection Clause violate the Equal Protection Clause? For that, we have to go back to the majority opinion. As with affirmative action laws, homosexuals were granted the "right" to be a protected class under Romer, to be treated differently, better, than everyone else in the law.
Let's fast forward. In the same year Romer comes out, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton. In 2003 and citing Romer, Lawrence overturns Bowers and throws out all sodomy laws as they relate to consenting adults. Beginning in 2003 as well, also citing Romer (as well as Lawrence), several state courts threw out their marriage definition laws or decided that because homosexuals are a protected class, a special "right" was given to them to "marry" someone of the same sex. Later came Hollingsworth v. Perry; bad as it was, it wasn't the pinnacle of judicial activism in these cases.
That came about with another Kennedy-authored majority opinion in United States v. Windor. Here, DOMA Sec. 3 dealing with federal benefits for married people was thrown out since marriage was only recognized when between a man and a woman. What's really sick about this is that it was all so unnecessary. Both the federal district and circuit court rulings (in the 2nd Circuit) had ruled in Windsor's favor but without mentioning anything about marriage "equality" or homosexual "marriage". Had the Supreme Court turned down the final appeal, the country wouldn't be in the homosexual "marriage" mess we're in. Worse, Kennedy did the exact same thing in Windsor as he did Romer; he went farther than what was called for while leaving in place DOMA Sec. 2, which allowed states where homosexual "marriage" didn't exist to keep from recognizing one recognized in another state. This is exactly what he did in Romer, created a special "right" for homosexuals but left Bowers and sodomy laws intact.
As with Romer, Kennedy (who is listed as a Roman Catholic yet seems not to adhere to Christianity at all) displayed his "clairvoyance" about what he saw was in the hearts of those who passed DOMA, just as he did with the majority of Colorado voters who passed Amendment 2, and rendered DOMA being passed due to animus against homosexuals by those who passed it. And yet what Kennedy completely ignores is the actual history of why DOMA was passed in the first place or the context. When DOMA was passed, Romer had just come out. Yet, sodomy laws would remain constitutional, thanks to Kennedy and Romer, for another seven years. Homosexual "marriage" didn't exist in any state. DOMA was passed after the Supreme Court of Hawaii demanded a clarification by the state's legislature and/or voters of how marriage was to be defined (Hawaii defined marriage properly at that time; their definition to include homosexual "marriage" came later), so Congress (surprisingly) wanted to get ahead of the issue. All of this is completely ignored by Kennedy and the majority. And without doing so since the majority left DOMA Sec. 2 intact, Kennedy and the majority decided that defining marriage legally as being between one man and one woman was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. By bearing false witness, by declaring that homosexuals are to be treated differently by the law than everyone else, and with outright lies, Kennedy's Windsor is being cited as the reason "judges" all over the country are creating the special "right" of homosexual "marriage".
This defies utter logic. But of course, logic isn't what is driving advocates for homosexuals. It's nothing more than a blatant power grab to further degrade the already degraded institution of marriage and to have the government promote the sexual deviancy and permissiveness that is the culture in the United States.