You are apparently laboring under the misapprehension that I obsessively follow and catalogue your posts on this issues; let me assure you that this is not the case.
I did extent the courtesy of reading the linked posts, several of which had little or nothing to do with same sex marriage, and even of those that did framed your objection in legalistic terms (in essence, that such a right was not within legal traditions or specifically enumerated in the Constitution) rather than making some evidential pr principled case for an objection based in logic or essential necessity. The closest that came to any fundamental explanation was this:
Setting aside the prejudicial terminology in “reverse incorporation”, it does not explain why if civil unions are sufficient for same sex couples why they should not be legally adequate for male-female unions, and of course overlooks the substantial limitations of civil unions, to wit that states are not Constitutionally required to acknowledge ‘civil unions’, as well as protections for community property, parental rights, et cetera. And it certainly doesn’t explicate your objection to the extension of marriage to same sex couples—something that much of the developed world has legally codified as a fundamental right—being ensconced in American law beyond the argument of tradition.
So, in plain language, is your specific objection to same sex marriage that is not veiled in some kind of malice or the cruelty of treating someone as a second class citizen for not being heterosexual?
Stranger