That very much depends on how charitably one interprets the law.
If banning an AR-15 doesn't infringe my right to gun ownership, then in the same way, a ban on gay marriage doesn't infringe my right to marriage. I can still marry anyone (of the opposite sex) that I choose.
Like I said, I'm not arguing on behalf of those who would ban gay marriage -- I think it's a very wrong-headed position to take, but that dosen't invalidate that it's quite a common position to take, and that the infringement of rights we don't like is a ritual practiced by left and right alike, and that the exploitation of the democratic process to effect those goals is not only common, but _routine_.
The point is that despite democracy, the constitution and its provisions against being able to impose unconstitutional whimsies on populaces we don't like are supposed to encourage a tolerant society. The tolerance to let another person live their life in a way that you don't approve of is a pre-requisite to America functioning correctly. I'm not a historian, so I can't say if we've forgotten it, or we never really knew it, but it's definitely a lesson we need to learn or re-learn as appropriate.
Tying back to OP, at least one manifestation of that ideal is perhaps not in routinely making fun of the whole rest of America to which you don't belong. Of course, it is your right to do so, but disparaging ideas with which you don't agree (as opposed to making substantive arguments through engaged civil discourse) is perhaps not the best strategy to prevent against the continuation of those routine infringements.
If banning an AR-15 doesn't infringe my right to gun ownership, then in the same way, a ban on gay marriage doesn't infringe my right to marriage. I can still marry anyone (of the opposite sex) that I choose.
Like I said, I'm not arguing on behalf of those who would ban gay marriage -- I think it's a very wrong-headed position to take, but that dosen't invalidate that it's quite a common position to take, and that the infringement of rights we don't like is a ritual practiced by left and right alike, and that the exploitation of the democratic process to effect those goals is not only common, but _routine_.
The point is that despite democracy, the constitution and its provisions against being able to impose unconstitutional whimsies on populaces we don't like are supposed to encourage a tolerant society. The tolerance to let another person live their life in a way that you don't approve of is a pre-requisite to America functioning correctly. I'm not a historian, so I can't say if we've forgotten it, or we never really knew it, but it's definitely a lesson we need to learn or re-learn as appropriate.
Tying back to OP, at least one manifestation of that ideal is perhaps not in routinely making fun of the whole rest of America to which you don't belong. Of course, it is your right to do so, but disparaging ideas with which you don't agree (as opposed to making substantive arguments through engaged civil discourse) is perhaps not the best strategy to prevent against the continuation of those routine infringements.