As I said, conflation for your argument.
Sodomy laws were invoked and punishable for any hetero or homo sexual act. This was due to it being considered an unnatural sexual act not a religious effront.
The Defense of Marriage Adt was signed by Clinton in 1996. And you likely voted for him. And the "will of the land" was an overwhelming percentage of support for enacting it. So is it/was it about constitutionality or is it now, politically motivated by a far more liberal administration? Or is it something else still? Like political "evolution" to quote Hillary, Barack and Crazy Uncle Joe? Very fashionable now to be pro-homosexual and transgender, etc.... I say, believe what you believe, and live and let live.
"Tossing homosexuals out of the military" was due to creating a hetero sexual environment to avoid distraction or sexual misconduct. Since at the time, women were not allowed in forward troop assignments, a single hetero environment was considered a more stable emotional environment for combat and obedience. Now, with women and homosexuals in the military, there are far greater occurrences of sexual misconduct by harrasers, rapists, and oppressors than before. Maybe at the time is was myopic, but it certainly heavily restricted behaviour that is now rampant and problematic. By the way, I'm okay with women and homosexuals in combat. They pay taxes, they are citizens, let it be their choice.
Your comment about Jefferson and the first line of the Constitution is incorrectly contrived. "We the people..." Had nothing at all to do with the populus' disposition towards religious belief or natural order, it had only to do with specifically avowing to solidarity of the populus to the following laws and tenets.
Understand, the Declaration of Independence was to inform England that the citizens of the colonies no longer accepted rule by a foreign monarch and that they themselves were invoking "self-rule by equal representation". Parsing the first line to an anti- post is inaccurate. Instead, the right to self-govern by duly elected representatives of the "people" was deemed an inalienable right. The were among the first inhabitants to create a completely new system of government with this model. That is why it took nearly 13 years from the D/I to sign the Constitution, then another 4 plus years to have it fully ratified by all states.
There was never any attempt to enforce religious practice onto the populous then or now. Nor was there an overt effort to denounce the source of these "rights and liberties" as not being bestowed by inalienable province.
And for anyone that does not know the meaning of that word, it means bestowed by God and not within the power of man. Now, you don't have to believe in God, Buddha, Allah, or Ra to be the beneficiary of these rights, as the Constitutin so adeptly limited government from oppressing the population with respect to religious liberty, you know freedom of religion. And if yours is "non-religion or Dogma ate my Karma, or evolution, or whatever", then that is guaranteed by the authors and executors of the Constituion. And all because of inalienable rights.
It may not be the belief system for many today, but it was unequivocally the belief system of the "architects" of our freedom. And still serves everyone exceptionally well that they held these beliefs because the constitutionally defined limits of power to the government are exactly what is being redressed by the same sex marriage proponents. And good for them!
