You have no clue what you're talking about, and your dodging of the question posed to you clearly indicates that you have no legs to stand on in your argument. Only the brain-dead will buy any of that malarkey.

If you call them "interracial marriage laws" then they were about racism and marriage, since both are acknowledged in that phrase. Racism was used to deny people basic rights, (like the right to marry whomever they loved enough to want to marry), to dehumanize them, thus making it easier to enslave them.

Perhaps revisiting history classes (or any classes for that matter) would be a wise next step for you since there is no hint of comprehension or accuracy in your quoting of it.

You need to worry less about logic and more about history and accuracy.

In short, the interracial marriage laws were about racism, not marriage. They were unequally applied to different races, and ultimately the Loving court decided that race has NOTHING to do with marriage.

But just about everyone still agrees that (as the Loving court said) sex/gender has EVERYTHING to do with marriage.

Are you kidding me with this?

So by your logic, it was an "infringement" on the rights of the majority when the courts decided that interracial couples should marry as well, despite the majority's belief that there was something gravely immoral about it, right?

What's the difference?

Some Guy wrote: "You disenfranchise and entire section of the population because of your religion based bigotry."

No one is being disenfranchised.

You wrote: "and lesbians are being denied the right to marry"

Untrue. Gays and Lesbians marry in every state, all the time. They just marry someone of the opposite sex.

Whether or not they WANT to do that is hardly a "huge constitutional problem".

What about children being raised by gay couples, who are much more vulnerable and have less protections because they can often not have a legal relationship with both parents?

Do marriage attackers care about those children? Or are those children just lambs they are willing to sacrifice on the altar of their greater goal, i.e., scapegoating gay people for the failure of heterosexuals to maintain their marriages?

I don’t think anyone is saying gays and lesbians are being disenfranchised; that means they aren’t being allowed to vote. The problem is that the US Constitution guarantees all citizens equal rights and gays and lesbians are being denied the right to marry. Gay couples do not have equal access to marriage licenses, compared to straight couples, except where same-sex marriage is legal. This is a huge constitutional problem.

However, Sanders made a commitment to his electorate and his did not release himself from that commitment by virtue of his daughter's private relationship.

His was a 180-degree turn, not a nuanced change in political commitment to the electorate.

On the other hand, SSMers insist that an elected representative's conscience is insufficient reason to support the man-woman basis of marriage.

So, they want it both ways -- and then some.

Gays and lesbians can and do marry, just like the rest of us. No one is being "disenfranchised". If there's any bigotry involved here, it's among people who think the opposite sex is too gross to love.

Really? I thought the whole point of your organization was that politicians WERE elected to advance the views and values of their families?