I once advised people that if they found themselves uttering the phrase, "I'm not a racist," to stop there and ask why they felt the need to say it. Apparently, they have taken my advice and have gone a step further. Not only have they decided that it is preferable to be a bigot than a racist (even though it's still not a good thing), they are defining the parameters of bigotry. Preemptively, they are letting us know what is not bigoted behavior (i.e, "Just because I favor traditional marriage, doesn't make me a bigot.").
They're right, and they're wrong. I favor traditional marriage and I am not a bigot. I say this because I only favor traditional marriage for myself. I personally don't care what kind of marriage anyone else wants. Well, I should qualify that by saying I hope the woman I fall in love with also favors traditional marriage. They're wrong because when they talk about traditional marriage it is with the express purpose of denying the right to same-sex marriage.
The recent DOMA ruling has not cost the right a single right.You still have the right to speak out against same-sex marriage. You have the right to call it immoral and a sin, or even just plain icky. You have the right not to enter into one. The only thing you lost was the right to feel legally superior in your marriage, which, I would argue, you never had constitutionally speaking. You even get to maintain your religious right to feel morally superior if your church, synagogue, mosque, pasta bar, or other religious institution continues to uphold your traditional definition.
During the oral arguments (and does Clarence Thomas consider Oral the same as traditional?) Justice Scalia asked when exactly did same-sex marriage become un-Constitutional. I may have gotten this question backwards, as I was having difficulty searching the pdf document and therefore I am operating from memory. He asked if it was 1791 or with the 14th Amendment or some other time.
I would like to pause for a moment to reflect on the fact that the 14th amendment is where the "Equal Protection" clause resides. In 1776, we asserted that we had the right to sever ties to England because government's are instituted to secure the unalienable rights of their citizens, that these rights are afforded all in equal measure, and that King George III had failed in this duty. It took 92 years more, before the government we instituted in his stead affirmed this in law.
It has often been said that we are a nation of laws, not of men. Of course, if we were merely a nation of men, would there be any other kind of marriage than same-sex? From a legal standpoint, marriage is a contract. As such, there is no fear of someone (Other than Elaine Chao) marrying a box turtle, because animals cannot give consent under US law. Likewise, declaring that one can only be in one marriage contract at a time does not violate equal protection.
The Constitution, as the Supreme Law of the Land, sets the rules by which we agree to live. Its primary purpose as mentioned before is to secure the unalienable rights of the citizens of the United States. Any law, any ruling which violates the principle that "All men are created equal," (and as an enlightened culture women, too) is by definition un-Constitutional. Ironically, by enshrining slavery, that makes the Constitution itself, un-Constitutional. Dred Scott, Plessy v Ferguson, Bowers v Hardwick, were all un-Constitutional and they were ultimately overturned.
The long arc of history does indeed bend towards justice, and you traditional marriage bigots are on the wrong side of it.