As much as I dont quite follow with the idea of homosexuality, going against it; should be face more

persecution than the idea of homosexuality it self.

One will be infuriated to define freedom in relative to religion, because religion is the major factor that
places restrictions to gay and lesbiansm, It was never the constitution, It was the people drafting the
constitution that were infected/affected with religion sentiments, thus using that perspective to draft
what they deem right, or something that befits their own delusion of grandeur and call it law. Religion as
I would call it; is no different from different emancipation and social movements who have come to
librate people from one method of doing things to a perceived better ways of doing it, we have seen
through the course of history, it usually starts with a person (Messiah),so do every other movements,
religion,rights,gender to mention just few.Then; to define freedom, it is simply ones free will to choose.
So it raises a big concern when religion which is suppose to be a matter of freewill; is standing against
another act of freewill. On the premises that the world was ended because of the act of gay and
lesbiasm, one can perceived the sentiments that runs through 20th and 21st century reflecting in the
writing and interpretation of those scriptures. Now, One can say if the old world was ended, because of
the Law God imposes on people, then He; God created a new world having reviewed his law to entertain
more freewill.

In the era when biblical interpretation were consider Godly constitution and superior above any law,
because it was more important than any law that could have been formulated by human setting, there
were laws, cultures, way of life that were changed during the reign of those religion, it evolves from one
prophet to another. Those cultures and ways of life were also perceived to be right before they were
changed, but now, religion has taken away the flexibility that it will also come at a dead end, where the
law it proscribes during it reign will become arcade and there would be necessity to review it or change
it completely. Individual choices that does not affect a third party, which conducted with mutual
agreement between involved party should have no reason to face persecution.

Our constitutions, rights of individual, equality; should not be anywhere subjected to religious fallacies,
although 20th to 21st century has experienced different turn of liberation from those unhypothetical
factors, such as, whose responsiblity is what, the mode of dressing, women suffrage e.t.c, it is also
necessary to state clearly a constitution of freewill, that is, to make it undebateable at any turn of
events.

According to my selected primary source, Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) "The right to marry is
fundamental as a matter of history and tradition, but rights come not from ancient sources alone. They
rise, too, from a better informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives define a liberty that
remains urgent in our own era. Many who deem same-sex marriage to be wrong reach that conclusion
based on decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises, and neither they nor their beliefs are
disparaged here. But when that sincere, personal opposition becomes enacted law and public policy, the
necessary consequence is to put the imprimatur of the State itself on an exclusion that soon demeans or
stigmatizes those whose own liberty is then denied. Under the Constitution, same-sex couples seek in
marriage the same legal treatment as opposite-sex couples, and it would disparage their choices and
diminish their personhood to deny them this right."
The rights do not only need to be given, it need to be stated clearly the type infringement being
entertained in the act of obstructing the freewill of others. Nothing has affected human race more than
one group standing against the rights of others. In 20th and 21st century, there is already a new
paradigm, the laws we need to make arent forseen by those scriptures, that is the law between human,
computer and internet , still debating on individual rights as related to sexual orientation is a draw back
to human race, thus obstructing what is far ahead that should be contained.

Primary source:

http://www.americanyawp.com/reader/30-the-recent-past/obergefell-v-hodges-2015/