Umm thats exactly what you where saying:

"Pretty soon white people will be outnumbered by now minorities. We'll see what you say about majority rule when you, a religious white male,when you're outnumbered"

Then you saw what he said and changed it to a what if situation. Not to mention resorting to name calling. [sad]

So why don't you try not to be a "pussy" and own up to what you do. That's what I do.

My answer: If [and that is "if" not when] I was the minority and people where voting against me I would still respect the law and the constitution no matter what. It's simple.

To illustrate my point that there is no First Amendment "right to marriage," here is that same point as delivered by the Supreme Court.

..........

“The Constitution does not specifically mention freedom to marry, but it is settled that the ‘liberty’ protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment embraces more than those freedoms expressly enumerated in the Bill of Rights . . . but no claim based on the First Amendment is or could be made by this appellee.” – Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978)

“The Ninth Amendment obviously does not create federally enforceable rights. It merely says, ‘The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.’ But a catalogue of these rights includes customary, traditional, and time-honored rights, amenities, privileges, and immunities that come within the sweep of ‘the Blessings of Liberty’ mentioned in the preamble to the Constitution. Many of them, in my view, come within the meaning of the term ‘liberty’ as used in the Fourteenth Amendment . . . [including] freedom of choice in the basic decisions of one's life respecting marriage, divorce, procreation, contraception, and the education and upbringing of children. These rights, unlike those protected by the First Amendment, are subject to some control by the police power [of the States].” – Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 179 (1973)

“The ‘Establishment’ Clause [of the First Amendment] does not ban federal or state regulation of conduct whose reason or effect merely happens to coincide or harmonize with the tenets of some or all religions. In many instances the Congress or state legislatures conclude that the general welfare of society, wholly apart from any religious considerations, demands such regulation. Thus, for temporal purposes, murder is illegal. And the fact that this agrees with the dictates of the Judaeo-Christian religions while it may disagree with others does not invalidate the regulation. So too with the questions of adultery and polygamy.” – McGowan v. State of Md., 366 U.S. 420 (1961)

“The first amendment to the constitution, in declaring that congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or forbidding the free exercise thereof, was intended to allow every one under the jurisdiction of the United States to entertain such notions respecting his relations to his Maker and the duties they impose as may be approved by his judgment and conscience, and to exhibit his sentiments in such form of worship as he may think proper, not injurious to the equal rights of others, and to prohibit legislation for the support of any religious tenets, or the modes of worship of any sect . . . It was never intended or supposed that the amendment could be invoked as a protection against legislation for the punishment of acts inimical to the peace, good order, and morals of society.” – Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333 (1890) (overruled on other grounds)

“The integrity of this conduct or behavior as a religious practice has not been challenged . . . [but] we do not intimate or suggest in respecting their sincerity that any conduct can be made a religious rite and by the zeal of the practitioners swept into the First Amendment. Reynolds v. United States and Davis v. Beason denied any such claim to the practice of polygamy and bigamy. Other claims may well arise which deserve the same fate.” – Murdock v. Com. of Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)

..........

So you see, creating a "Church of Gay Marriage" would not give gay people any Constitutional right to gay marriage. All it would give them is a Constitutional right to believe that gay marriage should be legal - which they have anyway, under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. So the upshot is that it wouldn't give them anything at all.

You want to find a Constitutional right to gay marriage, look for it in the Court's substantive due process jurisprudence regarding the Fourteenth Amendment. Make a case that it's among the unenumerated rights of the Ninth Amendment. But don't look for it in the First Amendment, because it ain't there.

Your question was: "I'm completely baffled as to why a bunch of gay people have not yet come together to form their own religion, in which marriage between gays is considered part of their 'religious' freedom, and hence protected by our constitution under freedom of religion." I have given you the answer - it's because gay marriage would NOT be protected under "freedom of religion" even if "a bunch of gay people" formed such a church. Simple as that.