“Would you argue that the state has no right to enforce trial by jury or Habeaus Corpus?”
It depends. If the definition the state uses to define trial by jury and Habeas Corpus is the actual one, then no problem. If it decides trial by jury actually means a group of lemurs will judge you, then no.
If the state uses a definition that includes ‘gay marriage,’ would you argue that the state has the ‘right’ to punish those who will never buy into their impossible definition?
Freegards
“It depends.”
No, it doesn’t depend. These are fundamental rights that are a part of the constitution. The state has the obligation to preserve them, just as it has the obligation to preserve marriage.
“If the state uses a definition that includes ‘gay marriage,’ would you argue that the state has the ‘right’ to punish those who will never buy into their impossible definition?”
Preservation!= redefinition. Read the Reynolds vs the US decision. In redefining marriage - the state is abrogating their own constitutional obligations. All the marriages that they perform to those who do not qualify have zero force. The State cannot punish people who refuse to recognise it, because of the Reynolds decision. They can try, but it has no force of law.