Marriage, law and practical reasoning

"There is a tendency to think of judges as if they were independent mouthpieces of the infinite, and not simply directors of a force that comes from the source that gives them their authority. I think our court has fallen into the error at times and it is that that I have aimed at when I have said that the Common Law is not a brooding omnipresence in the sky and that the U.S. is not subject to some mystic overlaw that it is bound to obey." -Oliver Wendell Holmes



Perhaps no issue has been more misrepresented by any of the worldviews or “paradigms” more than the gay marriage issue. Most arguments assume fallacious premises when using such terms as “equal rights” or “civil rights”. Marriage does not exist as a right and nor are the rules that apply applicable to same-sex couples. The fight for marriage “equality” does not seem to be only for the privileges afforded to married couples but for a much-needed stamp of approval by government on the rest of society.

Oliver Wendell Holmes once said that the life of the law is not logic but experience and "the word 'right' is the most deceptive pitfalls" and "a constant solicitation of fallacy". There is a reason why benefits are provided to married heterosexual couples and why this union is advantageous for the state. This is in lieu of separate societal differences based on a subjective sense of morality (ideology) or rule of law. State sponsored marriage is beneficial to the state because the potential offspring of a married couple would be better cared for by a biological mother and father than the state, as well as protect the invested time of one the parents (most often the mother). In this sense, marriage is actually more of a restriction of rights rather than a conference thereof. Generally, this meant that the women/mother would raise the child and the man/father would work to support the family. Even in our more liberated age most couples prefer this arrangement.

The idea of alimony was created to protect the woman’s investment in her relationship and discourage the husband from running out on his family. A woman voluntarily gives up her career and accumulation of human capital in order to better serve her family, therefore allowing her husband to maximize his productive capabilities; alimony protects her investment. In some states, if a spouse were to buy a home it would automatically belong to both regardless of whose name is on the title. These “rules of the game” and restrictions were not promulgated by a specific worldview, rather human experience. Marriage existed before the state and was a large part of society before the law, specifically for the reasons outlined previously. The state, recognizing that it has invested interest in the outcomes of these unions allowed benefits (so long as they collect taxes) and protections to couples for their potential to have children. Marriage is at its core a contract protecting the biological, practical and chosen investment of the mother to forego a career to allow her husband to maximize his capital potential in the marketplace within a "traditional" family unit.  

Comparatively, In a private relationship people can come and go as they please and sign any contracts they want in regards to mutual investments. For instance, most business' or individuals that pool resources in order to maximize investment opportunities don't need to be married to protect either parties financial investment (private contracts). Durable power of attorney and living wills give one partner the ability to make choices for the other in cases of medical incapacitation. The "rules" that pertain to married heterosexual unions are only bestowed tax benefits in the sense that they get to keep more of their own money for procreative purposes, yet most of the rules restrict for the very same reasons (as the purpose of all laws are to restrict in one way or another). 

The ratiocination of why marriage has always been defined as one man and one woman was through a posteriori observation by man throughout many millennia in history. Sex between homosexual couples is a behavior that serves only one purpose: pleasure. Sex between heterosexual couples is more than a behavior but a biological process producing human life. The child is not self sufficient for many years and is dependent on the specific roles that both sexes play in his development (optimal development). You can no more apply the rules of marriage to same-sex couples as you can apply the rules of chess to checkers. The state simply has no vested interest in behavior or attraction whatsoever. 

Moreover, the 14^th Amendment does not apply to behavior it applies to people. And the very reason for many laws in the first place is to RESTRICT behavior. Same-sex couples have every right to be together and petition their government for redress of grievances and try to obtain the same privileges (as an anti-statist I'm for tax benefits for everyone for any reason). Our constitutional republican system encourages it through federalism in order to maximize liberty. I do not think any one particular worldview is disputing that. However, in California where the same privileges are granted to same-sex couples the crusade to change the meaning of the word through judicial review remains (click here for more on prop 8), therein lies the problem: society/people define words not judges, government officials or the intelligentsia. In our Republican society the law is not created solely to forbid, facilitate or sanctify behavior in which there is no vested state interest.

The government and people of differing worldviews/ideologies have no business meddling with the lifestyles of same-sex couples. In the same respect, homosexuals cannot force the approval of their lifestyle by everyone in society through an abstract change of a definition the government has no business in changing. Moreover, you cannot say that you have a right to your own morals and values then actively try and seek through government intervention the approbation of those with differing morals and values. The idea that these verities are only seen through the prism of a worldview paradigm suggests only an a priori account of the rule of law and human knowledge, when in the absence of demagoguery, ideology or sophistry the construct to maximize liberty and diversity exists within our Constitutional framework.

The Conservatarian or "anti-statist"

(Image Courtesy of Google Images)

There seems to be much confusion regarding the meanings of the many labels ascribed to political theories and ideologies on the right. I want to be careful with the term "ideology" being that it denotes some ideal that does not exist in reality or presuppose violations of natural law by the state, not all viewpoints on the right are ideological. Little discussion will focus on the political left. I don't want to bog down my point with defining the myriad leftist labels, rather solely focus on the political right.

First some basics; the party of the left is the Democratic party, simple enough. However, the root word democracy, contrary to leftist demagoguery, is in and of itself tyrannical. Majoritarianism is using the coercive arm of government to violate the natural rights of the minority. For example, my natural inviolate rights can be violated at the behest of a 51% majority. The rights of the 49% are not considered and are forcibly contravened by either a static or temporary majority (it's irrelevant the exact percentage of the minority and majority, so long as one individual's natural rights are violated). It's no coincidence that the 17th amendment was passed during the beginning of the fabian socialist movement.

Our founders and framers never once considered a democracy nor ever use the term in the Constitution itself. They feared just as much as a monarchy, the tyranny of the majority.

Today, we hear that education is a right, healthcare is a right, marriage is a right, and that it's something one can acquire at the polls. But the fact that these "pseudo-rights" come at the expense of someone else's natural rights by force, is rarely mentioned by either party. The Democratic party is an ideology built on increasing their own power at the expense of the individual through a majority vote, they adhere to party rather than natural law and are willing to violate them at the behest of their ever growing power. Equality is achieved by the have-nots voting for the property of the haves.

The party of the political right is the Republican party. The root word Republic denotes power belonging to each individual, not the majority (in the context of our Constitutional Republic). Government must follow a guideline that protects the sovereignty of the individual, not the majority or the ruling class. I can also elaborate on how the Republican party is not necessarily the party of Lincoln, Coolidge, Goldwater and Reagan, but that wouldn't serve the purpose of this specific explanation and because temporary Republican politicians decide to pervert the party platform does not change the root meaning of the term. I will delve far deeper into those differences later.

There has been little difference between the Democratic party and the Republican party throughout history, both claim to be the defenders of liberty while the growth of government and the subjugation of the individual is their modus operandi. Both are ideologically fixated on maintaining their own power and stranglehold in Washington, earning both the label of statists. The Republicans do not want to change the status quo established by statists from both parties, on the contrary, they want to wield its unconstitutional power. Regardless of party, power is corrupting, rarely in human history have rulers or magistrates willingly gave power back to the individual. There is no longer an opposition party to counter the statists in Washington, DC, excluding a select few.

Take Obamacare for instance, a valid constitutional protection against a temporary majority party line legislation that alienate our natural rights is congress' power of the purse (remember, judicial review is not in the constitution, so checks and balances were put in place for these specific occasions). The Republicans-rather than superfluous repeal votes that they know are not efficacious-can simply defund the law. But why would they, they are agents of the state just as the democrats are. All that matters is appearances as they pander to the ill-informed and apathetic about their ostensible attempts to repeal Obamacare, knowing full well the futility of such obtuse efforts. Remember, the same power this bill gives the Democrats it also bestows upon the Republicans.

The counter-revolution to the status quo of the modern Republican and Democrat statist are those that fight in one way or another for the individual over the state, whether that be by the rule of law (constitutional principles/natural law) or by the laws of economics. Contrary to the ideological premises of the statists, the notion of an individuals rights coming from "our creator" and the rights that affords each individual is far from an idea or an ideal but a demonstrable truth. To satisfy an ideology the state is to coerce the individual and violate their natural rights that are conferred by no man on earth, nor government. In fact, our natural rights have existed far before governments and will certainly outlast them so long as even one individual remains on this earth. Moreover, the essential purpose for the creation of our Republican government was to protect those natural rights from the government itself (through individual sovereignty), our fellow man or from foreign threats of plunder, not to violate said laws using the same power they were given by the people to safeguard them.

Conservative:
adjective 1. holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion.

Noun 1. a person who is averse to change and holds to traditional values and attitudes, typically in relation to politics.

The label "Conservative" is misleading and a misnomer as it pertains to the evolution of governments throughout history (their insatiable appetite for growth and power and the status quo in the United States for the past century). The conservative is not reactionary but adheres to the principles of natural law, that these shall not be violated under any circumstances whatsoever, whether it be by the state, your neighbor, a foreign country or time. These principles undergird the freedom from the state in the political, economic and civil society and allow for mechanisms that perpetuate the empirically superior free market to flourish above all other dirigiste alternatives. The framers of the Constitution were by no means conservatives but battle hardened liberal "radicals" providing the impetus to promulgate individual sovereignty and Constitutional Republicanism in order to preserve the inviolate rights of man (this, in the broader context of the tyrannical nature of government over mankind throughout history before and after the ratification of the Constitution).

The Conservative sees social/moral issues through the circumscribed construct of the Constitution; these societal moral decisions should be made by the representatives closest to the body politic insofar as the body politic themselves have the most amount of input at the most local level possible (Remember, States are supposed to have plenary power by virtue of the Constitution). Mobility between townships, cities, counties and states promotes political competition amongst governments in much the same manner as competitive capitalism amongst firms (this of course is predicated upon the federal government abiding by its enumerated powers). Competitive government closer to the people disincentivizes tyranny and cultivates diversity. The framers had intended for the federal government to be largely innocuous, especially over the individual. This founding principle is why we have the most diverse and tolerant nation on the face of the Earth, regardless of the interested sophistry of race hustlers and statist demagogues.

The Libertarians beliefs are congruent with that of the Conservative, the belief in a limited role of government into the political and economic affairs of the individual. Minarchism is the verity disseminated by both the Conservative and Libertarian. Whereas the Libertarian sees things more from an economic construct, this does not in any way invalidate the Constitution or the Conservative but yields greater understanding of both. The competitive notion of local and state governments has been elided by the federal leviathan intentionally by virtue of the statist seduced with the allure of self-aggrandizement.

Let us examine our drug policy for instance; the Conservative may not understand nor care about the premise that prohibition of recreational drugs creates a far more lucrative market for said drug, or how the drug war yields higher costs to society than benefits. This is irrelevant in a system with competing local and state governments with proper local and federal representation. The Constitution does not ban drugs, the states or the people do, as we have seen with the alcohol prohibition that ended in 1933 (alcohol prohibition was added to the Constitution than later repealed). The difference is/was the demand for alcohol is far greater than the demand for marijuana. However, this is untrue in Colorado and may be untrue elsewhere, depending on how motivated, interested or incisive the drug user is about going through the proper legislative processes. Do not solely blame the Conservative for the prohibition on drugs, rather the user himself who shows no inspiration to petition his legislator for change.

Drug users seem far more apt and willing to pay the cost of using without changing the law. In other words, the immediate and fleeting high of "fill in the blank" drug is worth the cost that the state has imposed on its usage to the user. To the non-user, the public policy on drug possession and use is of no consequence. The advent of medicinal marijuana cards in some states has made the legalization of marijuana a moot issue as the die hard users are able to acquire a card and have no reason to change the longstanding bans. Legislation much like other products and services respond to demand. An individual of either party that are in opposition to the legalization of drugs simply have to do nothing. Those who are for the legalization in either party, but are not dedicated users or do not use at all would not necessarily benefit enough from their time and effort to petition their representatives for change. The rule of law isn't perfect, but it must adhered to.

I am opposed to the war on drugs, but I'm not opposed to localities banning drugs as they see fit. So long as no one is coerced to live there. Much like a firm, if this policy (at the local level) is unwanted and people move to another locality because of it, the only people that would incur the costs are the body politic that passed the law. Moreover, the loss of tax revenue, jobs etc. would force the locality to lift the ban. This can go either way and applies to myriad legislation. Competition between governments is a good thing. However, much like monopoly in the private sector, monopoly in the public sector can only come from the federal government. When the federal government bans and enforces laws that belong to the states or to the people, they monopolize choice and limit freedom. Mobility is no longer an option for the individual and competition is stifled by force.

I am opposed to any federal ban on Marijuana or anything else for that matter, as they do not have the Constitutional proviso to enforce such a ban. The Supreme Court Decision of Gonzales V. Raich is one of many activist decisions by virtue of perverting the commerce clause at the expense of states/peoples rights.

As for same-sex marriage and abortion (Roe V. Wade is unconstitutional, the tyranny of judicial activism) the Constitution provides a guideline for both. In order to more fully understand that issue from a Conservatarian standpoint you can click here for clarification. You can supplant virtually any other moral issue with same sex marriage so long as it isn't a natural right or enumerated as a federal power by the Constitution.


In the words of Thomas Sowell, "The Constitution of The United States cannot protect us unless we protect the Constituion". Conservatives need to better understand the forces and mechanisms involved in the free market and how that protects individual liberty and limits the authoritative power of the state. Libertarians need to better understand the Constitution and how its protection of natural law is vital to the free market and individual sovereignty. Both Libertarians and Conservatives need to better understand that if we don't stop the statists (in either party) from eroding and obfuscating our Constitutional rule of law, the bastardized economic and political freedom we barely enjoy now in the breach, will seem like a foregone utopian dream.

Same Sex Marriage and the Constitution; a Guideline and Analysis.

(Image Courtesy of Google Images)

Some people believe that marriage is a civil right, safeguarded by our constitution, however, the Constitution itself never mentions marriage nor is there any explicit law banning marriage between two individuals of the same sex. THE 14TH AMENDMENT HAS ZERO TO DO WITH BEHAVIOR OR SEXUAL PREFERENCE. The civil war was not fought over what happens in ones bedroom. That argument is old, tried and ridiculous. SAME SEX MARRIAGE IS NOT CONGRUENT TO INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE. Skin color is a far cry from behavior, attraction and choices. (regardless if you think sexuality is a choice or not). 

Let's look at this logically; the notion of marriage as a "right", is a presupposition of the verity that someone else must marry you, by virtue of forfeiture of another individuals liberty to satisfy your "right". Clearly, the only way this right could be fulfilled is by coercion, presumably, (definitely) by government. Moreover, since when do "rights" come at the expense of another indivdual's liberty, is liberty from coercion of one's fellow man not a right? The common fallacy among the left and many libertarians is that this is a "social" issue when it is not at all. Moreover, it's basis as a legal issue merely falls under the scantest penumbra of the law possible, insofar as marriage is a not a privilege conferred by the government; it existed long before the law and government. Marriage was/is a religious union that had and continues to have no definitive relation to the state whatsoever, other than as a TAX STATUTE. (I'm using capitals for emphasis being that for some, this is hard to comprehend). If you want to marry a lamp post, you can, however don't expect to get tax breaks from the state. Everyone is afforded the opportunity to marry, and everyone can, why do you need validation from the state. I hear libertarians arguing that the state should stay out of the "marriage business" as if government grants people the right to get married. If you don't want the state involved you have that option. Marrying anything or anyone without a state license is not a crime! This position is antithetical to the entire notion of libertarianism and in blatant disregard of our Constitutional Republicanism. 

The same-sex marriage debate is sophistry from the get go and is not about rights or government. This is about merely redefining the word, marriage. The only reason the state recognizes a marriage is for TAX PURPOSES ONLY. Not to tell you who, how, when, where and what to marry. There must be a legal statute as to define who would get the benefits. THIS IS NOT ABOUT SEX ACTS, sex between a man and women serves a purpose other than pleasure or love. (obviously, that's why we all exist.) The reason for this is to encourage a man and a women to marry for three reasons: to have children (posterity), to ensure that these children will not become a public charge and from a posteriori perspective of historical human knowledge dating back over a millenia (over 6 to be exact) that a man and a women can more adequately raise children than a one parent household or with two people of the same sex. (there isn't a study in the world today that does not prove this premise). 

Now, I'm not saying that two people of the same sex should not be allowed to adopt, that's not at all what this blog post is about, nor is it about the morality of homosexuality. I could care less, really. My beliefs are mine alone, and I really don't want to know what heterosexuals do in their bedroom let alone homosexuals. Thirteen states in the Union either have domestic partnership laws (afforded the same benefits as marriage) or have redefined the term altogether. That's totally fine and well within their rights to do, exactly what the notion of federalism is for. 

What I do have a problem with however, is how liberals and libertarians think that violating the Constitutional process is a good thing because of their own ideology, zealotry or prejudices.( I guess I understand why Marxists would, just not libertarians) If this issue was so critical and demanded by so many people, why the rush to get five lawyers to coerce and nullify the will of the people. Let's look at the Supreme court ruling in California to get a better idea. Now, if you want same sex marriage, call your representative and lobby for change, you can petition your government, but sooner or later a law you may not agree with could get imposed the very same way, and you'll think twice about the tyrannical methods of politicians and the government.

But I digress...

Some people feel that the Federal Supreme Court should usurp the legislative branch and federalism undergirded by the 10^th amendment in order to legalize, top down, same sex marriage. This blog post will discuss the constitutional process that ensures a rule of law procedure protecting the individual from an oligarchy of nine lawyers usurping power that belongs to the States or to the people.

                        
This is not a political argument, as some views have blurred the political lines. It is a legal issue that is only perpetuated by constant distortion of the facts, ignorance of our founding documents and direct opposition by some of our rule of law. In 2000 and 2008 by referendum, the sovereign voters of the State of California voted in favor of the traditional definition of marriage via prop 22 and prop 8 respectively, both confirming/reiterating the definition of marriage; the union of one man and one woman. The body politic of California voted and approved a measure that would be definitively added to their State constitution. These State definitions and statues are solely for the purposes of State tax benefits to married couples, not the legality of private citizens ability to marry one another how they see fit. In other words, two men can marry one another, but under State tax statutes they would not be awarded tax benefits. (However, they are afforded the same tax benefits under the domestic partnership statutes in California.. more proof this is not about rights, but about a word.) 

                        
In the case of Prop 8, opponents of the statute sued and eventually it reached the Supreme Court of California overseen by the Federal 9^th circuit court of appeals. During the deliberations of the court the people of California’s representatives refused to argue the very peoples case they were chosen to represent. Jerry Brown, then the Attorney General of California was derelict in his duty as described by Valerie Richardson of the Washington Times:

...The answer: Because Mr. Brown refused to defend Proposition 8, even though part of the attorney general’s traditional job description is to defend state law from legal challenges — including laws with which they disagree.

This would not be the only time Jerry Brown and California’s AG would shirk their duties, as noted in a piece by the Ruth Institute:

The path to this point has been circuitous to say the least…last December the court heard arguments on the case’s merits, but because Governor Jerry Brown and Attorney General Kamala Harris have refused to defend the law, in January the 9th Circuit asked the California Supreme Court to decide whether the Protect Marriage coalition had legal standing to defend Prop 8.

                             

With the slowly changing opinion of the body politic of the United States the Obama Administration after years of defending the law rightly as constitutional, decided to challenge the Federal statute (DOMA) defining the law for Federal tax purposes only. As a tax collecting governing body the Federal government has many tax statutes that are applied and enforced by the IRS under the Department of Treasury. In late March 2013 these statutes (proposition 8 and DOMA) were deliberated in front of the U.S. Supreme Court, reigniting a longstanding national same sex marriage debate.

                       

The same sex marriage debate is easily answered with careful consideration of our Constitution. As seen previously with prior court decisions like Roe V. Wade, many ideologues refuse to let legislation occur how it was Constitutionally mandated to occur; through the body politic via the legislative branch of government. The 10^th Amendment of our Constitution is far more lucid than ambiguous, it clearly states: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. (US Constitution-Amendment X). A right to marriage is not articulated nor enumerated in the U.S. Constitution so the power to define marriage falls on the states, irrespective of the Federal definition.

                        

The purpose of the 10^th amendment is to diffuse the powers of the three federal branches of government amongst the several states. This is only one of the protections included in the Constitution to prevent central planning and ultimately, tyranny.  This amendment affords plenary power to the States and safeguards the liberty of the individual by keeping legislative matters in the representative’s hands that are closer to the people.(the state) Moreover, why should laws passed in a city in Oregon be imposed on a city in Georgia? They are composed of people with differing lifestyles and opinions, none more valid than the other. The 10^th amendment safeguards the sovereignty of the people at the local level insofar as protecting their liberty from a ubiquitous federal leviathan.

                        

As for DOMA, a law passed by bipartisan majorities in the House and Senate and signed into law by the President is perfectly and unequivocally constitutional. It is the very process by which our government is to abide by in order to maintain the will of the people. It is not in violation of the 10^th amendment because it merely defines marriage a federal statute for the purposes of tax collection. It does not impose its definition on the people/states. (there are hundreds of IRS tax statutes at the federal level).

                         

The same sex marriage proponent’s main charge is that the majority of the American people want to change the definition of marriage to include same sex unions. The main strength of this charge is that the major sentiment towards same-sex marriage is beginning to change in this country, its through this organic reversal of previous majority opinion that legislation can and will be changed through the legislative process. (insofar as this sentiment actually exists) Same sex marriage proponents or supporters should urge their Representatives to introduce and pass legislation recognizing same sex unions. 

Another charge from same sex proponents is constitutional, based on the equal protection clause of the 14^th Amendment, Section 1. (U.S. Constitution Amendment XIV Section 1) The 14^th amendment guarantees equal protection under the law. The strength of this argument is that the 14^th Amendment of the Constitution can give the wiggle room needed to a Supreme court Justice in order to overturn Prop 8 and DOMA, without the need for legislation. This would also be far speedier than the legislative route.

                       

 The fact that the body politic's views on same sex marriage are changing is certainly advantageous towards its proponents cause. However, if this is true, and it may well be, then why try to change the status quo in the Supreme Court composed of nine lawyers that have no business legislating policy issues? What if the court ruled same sex marriage is unconstitutional? That would set a dangerous precedent of jurisprudence that tramples on the rights of states to define marriage as the people see fit. 

We are not ruled by an oligarchy of Supreme Court justices, on the contrary, that’s the very reason we elect legislatures at the federal and state levels. The people decide what is right for their respective State. If New York decides to recognize same sex marriage and California does not, those folks that decide they want a same sex union in CA can move to New York. On the flip side however, if the Supreme Court decides to ban same sex marriage at the Federal level, it would be a violation of their respective States right to decide as well as a violation of individual liberty. It is far easier to move to another state, but much harder to move to another country.

                        

The constitutional argument put forth stands on shaky Constitutional ground as well. There certainly is an equal protection clause in the 14^th Amendment; however, this equal protection was added to Constitution as an exclamation point to the Civil War. It was another measure to explicitly state that Black Americans are American and entitled to equal protection under the law. It was in no way related to marriage, or sexual preferences. This also is not a formula for success as far as same sex marriage is concerned; proponent’s arguments should be more focused solely on the rule of law. To equate the same sex marriage debate to race is wholly inaccurate, and disenfranchises the brave black men and women who fought against violations to their natural rights as human beings, already protected by the constitution. They were treated in a brutal, vicious and appalling manner; not coincidentally the treatment was upheld by the very same Supreme court the same-sex lobby is begging for today. 

This argument is not only based on the morality of homosexuality. There is a large amount of people that believe it to be immoral and they have every right to believe that. There is also a large portion of people who believe that homosexuality is perfectly moral and they also have every right to believe that. My views or anyone else’s views should not be imposed on the entire populace by the Federal government. That would by its very nature be Tyrannical, providing for the very purpose of the 10^th Amendment or federalism. Ideologues on both sides of the political spectrum get caught up bickering about fallacious arguments because they have little to no knowledge of the law.

                        

We already have a system in place that answers most of the questions to our social, political and civil liberties, yet we choose to ignore it and replace it with our own personal opinions or feelings. Most arguments stemming from either side tend to be sophistical by appealing to emotion rather than a logical conclusion. The rule of law denudes emotion and fosters logic, it undergirds the liberty of the individual by retarding the ideologies or policies of those we may oppose. Federalism retains the right of the people to choose by which laws they wish to be governed.

                        

Charges of bigotry are hurled at opponents of same sex marriage, and it is sometimes equated to racial discrimination. But how can a definition be discriminatory? Are drinking age laws discriminatory towards teenagers? Are polygamy laws discriminatory towards a religion? If one does not like the laws he or she is living under in their State or locality then lobby your representatives to change them, but don’t force people who do not live in your State to abide by the same laws if those people do not feel the same way. It is one thing to fight for what you believe in, but it’s another to force everyone to live by those beliefs via unelected lawyers rather than the people’s lawful representation.

                        

If same sex marriage advocates were serious about promoting same sex marriage, they should lobby the Representatives in those respective states that have not yet changed their definition of marriage, (In most cases this is already happening) Instead of citing the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution use the 10^th amendment because that would be more applicable and advantageous to their cause.

                        

The same sex marriage debate is only debatable in the eyes of the individual’s moral compass, not in that of the law. The Constitution is a document that must be adhered to in order to ensure the liberty and equality of the individual themselves. Most of the debate is predicated upon fallacious premises or slogans and rarely is the proper methodology of the law discussed. 

                           
It is entirely appropriate to either support or oppose the recognition of same sex marriage if it is done legally and amicably and within the confines of valid political discourse. The only side to this argument is the Constitutional one, or should be the only one that matters. It cannot easily be rebutted because it is written very clearly in our governing document, which all politicians take an oath to uphold. What we need is less bickering, fallacy and demagoguery and more of an analytical Constitutional discussion.