EQUAL PROTECTION?

On November 10, 2014, Associate Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor temporarily blocked the issuance of a marriage license to a gay couple, presumably until the Supreme Court can consider the conflicting rulings of the various US Courts of Appeals below.

The ongoing argument about gay marriage has been stupidly misdirected: it is not about gay "rights"; it's about whether or not a state government has the inherent POWER to discriminate against certain classes of adults in denying access to CIVIL (not religious) marriage despite the strong injunction of the 14th Amendment that mandates EQUAL PROTECTION of the laws.

Under the US Constitution, personal "rights" are presumed (9th Amendment); governmental "powers" must be proven (10th Amendment).  Why do so many judges and politicians keep getting this fundamental rule backward?  Can't they read the plain English of a document they are all sworn to support?

Up to now, the law on such matters has been undeniably clear: states may not discriminate against "equal protection" absent a showing of a COMPELLING state interest in maintaining such discrimination.  In other words, NO government (Federal, state, local) has a presumptive "blank check" of power derived from the people.  Governments have the continuing burden of proving the existence of a compelling governmental interest in depriving gays of the substantial legal benefits of marriage, and all judges (including Sonia Sotomayor) are obliged to require such a showing BEFORE such discriminatory laws may be validated.  Such laws are (or should be) presumptively INVALID!

Justice Sotomayor seems to have disregarded her sworn obligation to uphold ALL of the Constitution, including the 14th Amendment.  Like so many prevailing idiots, she has shifted the burden of proof off of the government and onto the complainants, forcing them to show why they dare deserve "equal protection"!  What nonsense!  The gutless wonders on the US Supreme Court should have nipped this hyper-religious chickenshit in the bud a long time ago!

The state has an obvious interest in protecting those who cannot consent (children, animals) from being forcibly married to someone, such as 14-year-old girls being forced into multiple marriage with Mormon elders like Joseph Smith!  The state also has an obvious interest in preventing genetic inbreeding by prohibiting close relatives from marrying each other.  What is the compelling NON-RELIGIOUS interest in prohibiting homosexuals from marrying each other?  Last time I checked, the US was not a pathetic Christian theocracy!

Unless and until there is such a showing by a state, it seems to me that unrelated adult human beings are PRESUMABLY entitled to marry whomever they damned well please, any time they wish!  Why is that so difficult for Sotomayor (or any judge) to understand?