Wrong again. I never made mention to race or anything else. I only rebutted your lame comment that there is no right to marriage when in fact the SCOTUS ruled there was.<quoted text>
Loving v Virginia was based on race. Same sex marriage is based on sexual preference. I can prove genetically that a person is caucasian or black. As of today there is no genetic marker for homosexuality. Allowing a black person to marry a white person is completely different than allowing a same sex couple to marry unless you are saying that we must now allow any person(s) with a sexual preference outside the cultural norm marry because they have a "right" to. As an aside you need to realize that many in the minority community hate that gays and their advocates use the civil rights struggle to try to make their point. They see it as an insult. Using Loving v Virginia does that.
As I said before, our laws are ripe with examples of relationships that society as a whole has decided don't qualify for marriage. Mothers and grown sons, Fathers and grown daughters, first cousins...... They are all heterosexual relationships with partners past the age of consent that don't qualify for a "right" to marry under the law. Under your definition they would also be afforded that same "human right" to marriage wouldn't they?. They aren't so to say that there is a universal human right marry under the law is just incorrect.
I want you to take note of a few things. I don't use bestiality in my opinion nor do I use marriage to children as many same sex marriage opponents do. It's because I don't think they are relevant and there are plenty of examples of relationships between consenting adults that are prohibited from culminating in marriage and because consent is key. Again, there is no universal "human right" to marriage.
Chief Justice Earl Warren's opinion for the unanimous court held that:
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law"
the basis of the Loving case revolved around racial discrimination with respect to marriage but the ruling itself started off with classifying "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," That is the key to why you are wrong.
As always, you over analyzed it because you're pretending to be intelligent...