You seem to accept Paul as an authority. His stance on marriage is recorded in 1 Cornithians 11:11.

And everyone is given freedom of conscience to vote as their beliefs dictate. There is no excluding one group or another.

So many problems, where to start...

in order to protect the equality of the races would mean we shouldn’t allow people of the same races to marry

Its a wonder the Loving justices weren't as smart as Stephanie.

Or maybe they weren't as ignorant.

What she just argued is a good way to get rid of all races, but at least its equal...

There biologically there are more than two genders

False (entirely).

There are only two genders. There are no "three genders" biologically in nature, anywhere.

Just male and female.

Combinations of the two are not a "third". Its simply a combination of the two.

Moreover, cultural recognition of multiple genders is very different than biological.

And its after that display of ignorance she judges...

Onlawn, the problem with equating same-sex marriage to some sort of legal inequality is unfounded.

Seperate but equal, is not equal.

Man and Man is not equal to woman and woman. Neither are they equal to man and woman.

Sex segregation is not equality.

That being said, though I hold the scriptures in highest esteem, the Bible should not be used to govern our country due to the wall of separation of church and state. Most argue that this wall guarantees people the right to worship without the interference of government, and rightly so. But that's only part of it. This wall is also meant to protect the government from an over-bearing influence from the church. The early European settlors to our great country were driven here by persecution from over-bearing governmental influences of the Church of England, the Catholic church and the Protestant church in the German states during the protestant reformation. If we would rule by the Bible, Atheists must be condemned, divorce wouldn't be an option, adulterers would be stoned to death. Instead, we have a different code that we use to define morality in our society. It's called the law.

If that were the case, we would be forcing everyone to marry, but we don't. Also, I'm a heterosexual married woman and I don't know anyone that views marriage as a way to make the sexes equal. Was I somehow less equal to men when I was unmarried?

That's actually not true. There biologically there are more than two genders, some societies even recognize these people as a third sex (mixed-sex). There are hermaphrodites and many other varieties of genetic gender mixes. You can keep claiming that humanity is two-sexed, but it just isn't true. Nature doesn't fit into a pretty little box.

Only a small portion of married fathers face such scenarios; and the marital presumption of paternity has proven very reliable -- upwards of 90% of challenges fail. Its efficacy serves justice and protects 1) children, 2) the husband and the wife, and 3) their marriage, and 4) the social institution of marriage itself.

Maybe you imagine that the new default position of the law "in this day and age" is that husbands and society must distrust married mothers to the extent that each and every birth of a child, in marriage, requires DNA testing before parental status is recognized. Perhaps you will even produce the law that makes this DNA testing mandatory for all births.

That is your homework assignment, Jeffrey, produce evidence of this new law.

And for bonus points you will reconcile this supposed new and modern default position with the marriage idea of sexual monogamy and respect
for the dignity of both men and women and their children. How you can do that without asserting Government as the owner of civil society, well, we will have to wait and see.
* * *

Jeffrey, if your imagined default position were so, there would be an endless backlog in the court system. Parental status would be delayed long after the birth of each and every husband's children. And all this for what? To prove what experience has already shown: that the marital presumption of paternity is almost always correct. But since that is just not good enough, and neither is the "arcane" system of challenging the presumption, you would insist on absolutism, like a faithful SSMer. You would presume that all married husbands are NOT the fathers of the children born to their wives during marriage. Children would be fatherless until proven otherwise. This inversion would be a very odd way for mothers to treat their husbands.

Henceforth: all children and husbands must submit to mandatory DNA testing. Mabye we should require the same of all mothers, too, for the
sake of equality for all. That's the inevitable future you'd envision. The Government must be uber efficient and absolutist.

No matter. All of that really still would get you no place useful for your line of SSM argumentation.

DNA testing for paternity is scientifically based on the opposite-sexed essentials of human procreation. If a husband today wants to test for his paternity, rather than trust his wife, he is at liberty to do so on his own and proceed accordingly to court, if he so desires.

That so few do so must exemplify how, in your view, marriage is all about love and romance. Yes? No? Married people seem to rely on a lawful presumption of some kind; and so does government -- including the courts which vigorously enforce it.

Anyway, you are back at square one.

Marriage is a public relationship with public meaning; it is a sexual relationship of husband and wife; and there is nothing comparable to the marital presumption of paternity in the law that would make SSM a sexual type of plublic relationship.

Maybe that is why you appear to be in such a rush to declare the marital presumption of paternity to be suddenly irrelevant. You would make marriage a nonsexual type of relationship. And that means you are still on the spot for justifying eligibility criteria. You need a core meaning, Jeffrey, and you still haven't found one even though you appear to hope for the demise of the core meaning of marriage.

More homework for you, Jeffrey. And, no, it won't do for you to show up with the excuse that your dog ate it.

Your contention amounts to the demand that society treat all unions of husband and wife as if they lacked either husbands or wives. That way,
you'd hope, justice will be done for a tiny segment of a tiny subset of the very broad range of nonmarital relationships and nonmarital living arrangements.

The new family court motto: Injustice for all and justice for those more equal than the rest.

If the U.S. law that protects the equality of the sexes goes as far as to not allow a male-male or female-female marriage, then in order to protect the equality of the races would mean we shouldn't allow people of the same races to marry.

Since the court doesn't see same-race marriages as discriminatory towards other races, then the court shouldn't view same-sex marriage as discriminatory either.

Its whether or not you should neuter marriage from its goals of gender inclusive equality, and the equal recognition of the rights and entitlements of the man and woman and child they might have.