SAME SEX MARRIAGE

Oh Boy so much has happened and I haven't had the chance to post. Well, lets get right to the meat.

The Republicans in the US senate this week brought the Anti Gay marriage amendment to be debated for cloture and promptly lost.

Why were they seeking to amend the Constitution rather than pass a bill to "define" marriage? Because an amendment would become part of the Constitution and could not therefore be challenged on constitutional grounds.

Bills must be passed by both houses and signed by the president. If they infringe on people's civil rights they need to be reviewed by the Supreme Court to see if they meet constitutional scrutiny. If they are inconsistent with the Constitution they are stricken down per Marbury v. Madison.

I've seen several arguments against SSM

1. That it sanctions immoral behavior.

This is a falsehood, in that SSM does not sanction the sexual behavior that may or may not be a part of the relationship, it merely recognizes that certain people may choose to be in a committed relationship with each other and enforce the rights which that relationship carries. For example, celibate people may still identify themselves as gay (I know at least one celibate gay couple who have been together for 30 years), so the sex is irrelevant.

2. That SSM will somehow weaken the institution of marriage.

In order to believe that you have to believe that it either will reduce the incidence of marriage or that marriage is meant to between men and women only. There is no credible evidence of the first, and as to the second, "meant" implies that there is someone doing the "meaning". Whether you identify it or not, most people identify that "someone" as God. To advance, as some have, that that "someone" is society is both unproven and allows for the tyranny of the majority our founding fathers expressly precluded.

3. Sometimes human rights must take a back seat to the will of the majority.

This was the reason the Founding Fathers created the Bill of Rights, not to insure the rights of the majority -their rights are not generally in need of protection because (duh) they're the majority. I.e. if a majority of people are in agreement they have the power to effect their will, and as such their rights need no protection. The Founding Fathers recognized that this power left unchecked can lead to injustice.

4. That it would open the flood gates to such things as government sanctioned polygamy, incest, and even bestiality.

All of these things have compelling interests to prevent their being constitutionally recognized other than religious ones. The religious interests in banning them co-exist with those compelling interests. The compelling interests include public health, protecting children from abuse, and in the case of polygamy reducing the volume of litigation in the legal system. (polygamous divorce would be a nightmare in the current system. E.g. if a man divorces one wife and pays Community Property/alimony to her it denies support to the other wife who may not have legally divorced the first one, would all parties in a polygamous marriage have to divorce the one leaving, who is legally obligated to whom, etc. The conceivable backlog would grind the family law system to a halt.)

Marriage in this society, from the prospective of the government, is a bundle of rights. (Why else would the government be involved in marriage). Power of attorney, Medical power of attorney, succession, and child custody are just some of the bundle of rights marriage in this country guarantees to married couples. Denial of those rights to people based on their sexual orientation, without a compelling interest is invidious discrimination and should fail.