gay marriage, gay states rights and gay alabama

For those of you who could care less about Alabama, the conflict between the Federal courts and states rights, and the gay rights issue's part in those thing; you should probably close this e-mail.
I am very concerned about states' rights, having written a book (China's weaponized economy) discussing in large part the state constitutional convention concept and the whole gayness and alabamaness of the situation is just another example of what the planet would be a pleasant place if it wasn't for all the people on it.  Well, strictly speaking that isn't true.
I will probably have to break this commenatary into little pieces, but we'll start with the whole cake in the form of some excerpts and comments on excerpts from the 75 page opinion as to why the state of Alabama cannot abide gay marriage.  There are, by the way, some very practical problems with changing the law.  Why, I declare, they'd have to amend the laws.  Of course, it probably was not as difficult as eliminating slavery and that took...one day?  And in the middle of a war at that.
Hopefully the next civil war will not be about gay rights.
The first question you have to ask is why a gay person would live in Alabama given the availability of 49 other states to live in.
If you get past that, then you have to imagine that Alabama is as gay as the next state.  This has nothing to do with the population, but just the overall gay factor.  Using California as the benchmark, California has beaches, mountains and woods; Alabama has beaches and woods.  I don't really see mountains adding to gayness of a state.  The weather is warm and temperate in both states, both are parts of the Union (at least for now, I'm pretty sure Alabama is approach secession).  Both have extensive pine forests.  I say that makes the case.  Alabama is not overly gay, but its as gay as the next state.
Anyway, I have excerpted certain interesting parts from the opinion.

"The contract of marriage is the most important of all human transactions. It is the very basis of the
whole fabric of civilized society."Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Conflict of Laws Foreign and
Domestic § 109 (3d ed. 1846).  

WELL young people aren't getting married like they used to, the divorce rate is 50%, looks like things are going to hell in a hand basket.  IT's pretty much the case that human transaction is at an end.  But wait a second, wouldn't unprotected sex be the most important of all human interactions?  Lets face it, without that, we'd be the last humans on earth, with or without marriage.

And how about a-sexual cooperation?  That seems pretty important.  Two people working together to plant crops and harvest them, or do they have to marry to get that done.  Heck, democracy started in Greece and if you take "300" as the ideal, well, that's a pretty gay proposition, it's like muscle beach anywhere USA.  I'm not so sure that Roy and his buddies aren't just flaunting their own homophobia here.
"[Marriage] is an institution, in the maintenance of which in its purity the public is deeply interested,
for it is the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither
civilization nor progress." Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 211 (1888).

OK, so if this is true, why have no fault divorce in Alabama.  They should permanently shackle people together, gay or not if "marriage has to be "pure" and is the foundation of family and society.  No civilization or progress?  This means there must have been marriage at the beginning of man's transition from a hunter/gatherer.  Why, marriage must be an integral part of evolution.  Whoops, forgot, not sure the Alabama supreme court recognizes evolution.  That particular counter-argument might not make sense in context.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEep67akIn4

This is going to take a while.  I think I'll finish this later.