Race and gender are two different characteristics, and marriage is a union of both genders....it's in there...ya just have to look.<quoted text>
Again, you avoided a direct question.
You already answered the question that the Supreme Court had the right to overturn bans on interracial marriages even when the states held such bans as essential public policy. I agree.
The new question was:
What language in the Constitution do you believe would prevent the Supreme Court from making a similar ruling for same-sex marriage that it made in the Loving (1967) case?
The Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:This is not asking you what language in the constitution SUPPORTS a decision fully legalizing nation-wide same-sex marriage. I know you do not support such an action. So I want you to tell us what language in the constitution would PREVENT THE COURT from coming to a Loving-type ruling striking down all the state laws and state constitutional bans on same-sex marriage.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.
All rulings are interpretations.Don't rely on past rulings by the court. As you yourself said those are interpretations.
Only the conclusion of some justices.Rulings can be overturned. Bowers (1986) once allowed the criminalization of sodomy. Lawrence (2003) said that was not constitutional and the constitution did not change in the intervening years, only the conclusion of the court.