I think the 14th Amendment applies to all people. Contrary to what some past members of the Supreme Court may have claimed, the 14th Amendment does not refer merely to race. In fact, the author of the amendment specifically worded it to ensure that it didn't apply only to race despite attempts to make it so. So from an originalist and textualist perspective, when the 14th Amendment declares that no State may "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws," it is clear that that means all people. That they didn't think about gay people at the time is immaterial. Gay people are still people. They are still citizens of these United States. And they are right in their demand for equal protection under the law. Now, the Loving v Virginia case reiterated a long-standing finding of our jurisprudence: Marriage is a fundamental right. Thus, to deny to gay adults the right to marry is to fly in the face of Loving v Virginia. It would mean that States do have the right to deny marriage based upon race. For those who would claim that denying marriage based upon the sex of the participants doesn't discriminate against them since they can still marry someone of the opposite sex, I would point out that that was the exact same argument used in Loving v. Virginia: That the denial of marriage based upon the race of the participants doesn't discriminate against them since they can still marry someone of the same race. I should point out that the Loving decision was unanimous. The idea that a State's interest in determining who is allowed to enter into the bonds of holy matrimony includes determining the racial makeup of the people involved is anathema to a country that declares itself to be the "land of the free." So I have to wonder: Is the Senator suggesting that Loving v Virginia was wrongly decided? That States do have the right to restrict marriage based upon the race of the participants? That the "invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification" doesn't really exist? Because the claim of "sincerely held religious beliefs" was also used to justify racial discrimination not only against marriage but also for the Civil Rights Act. Is the Senator suggesting that the Constitutional rights of the citizenry as guaranteed to all "persons" are subject to the veto of a religious body? I would be very interested in hearing an argument before the Supreme Court that would justify why something as fundamental to the Constitution as the 14th Amendment has an exception that allows someone who is not a party to the contract and has no connection to the participants to object and deny them their fundamental rights as determined by that august body. If we are going to deny the fundamental right of marriage to people based upon the sex of the participants, then we must also be allowed to deny the fundamental right of marriage to people based upon the race of the participants. Or perhaps the Senator is suggesting that gay people aren't actually "persons" and thus the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to them; that they are to be stripped of their citizenship since they don't qualify. Senator, would you care to clarify your question? Is that what you are suggesting? The gay person has no rights which the straight person is bound to respect?