News-Record.com

"Democrats in Washington should do nothing to try to override the will of the people in individual states on this issue. Marriage ought to be a legislative issue decided state by state."

I'm neither a "big fan" of states' rights nor do I hold them in contempt. Generally speaking, the more responsible a state government is, the better its citizens are represented. But I have to draw the line when issues of equality come up, and same-sex marriages should be viewed through the lens of equality, as opposed to morality.

Marriage is not (just) a religious institution, it's a legal one as well. A legal commitment to each other, providing certain guarantees that each spouse has a "primary" protector, that will be readily accepted by society under any ambiguous circumstance. In the absence of a power of attorney, whether legal or medical, said spouse is to be relied upon to make decisions in the event of incapacitation.

This is a right that all heterosexual (married) couples enjoy across the board in this country, in whichever state they may travel to, and is even recognized in most other nations, even the really bad ones.

If this issue is left up to individual states to decide, that means that someone's individual civil rights could be lost simply by crossing a state line, and the fear of that loss could/would become a sort of geographical prison sentence. The idea that that may happen in America is revolting to me, frankly, and I don't care how the majority of blacks or whites or Christians or agnostics or Democrats or Republicans feel about it.

Equality has never been about plurality, it's been about struggling against the lack of plurality.

It's far from a settled legal conclusion that this is a matter of individual civil rights.

Of course it isn't settled, Doug. That's why there's so much activism surrounding it.

But work it from the other angle—if, in the absence of a last will and testament, a man's wife were completely excluded from the disposition of her husband's estate, or if a husband's opinion as to his incapacitated wife's treatment in a hospital was ignored while they searched for her estranged brother to make a decision, would that not rise to the level of a civil rights violation?

That's not the legal question here, Steve. The legal rights granted under a state's marital laws to one man's wife are due to every man's wife. That's equal protection.

What rights are granted to some other relationship is a separate issue.

Exactly. As long as the first step (legal marriage)) is withheld from same-sex couples, the associated rights are also withheld, allowing opponents to declare, "We're not taking away rights; you never had those rights in the first place." It's a clever argument, but at its core is an exclusivity that flies in the face of what civil rights (should be) all about.

Heck, even when cohabiting heterosexual couples refuse to take the steps to make their union "legal" via marriage, the legal system steps in and grants certain rights under a "common law marriage" umbrella. So some people have marriage forced upon them, while others are denied the opportunity.

And as far as your reference to "some other relationship", I would posit that the romance, devotion, strength from union, hope for the future, etc., are virtually identical in same-sex couples as it is in heterosexual couples. The physical aspects might be different, but all those other psychological things that make up a relationship are present in both.

I believe it is those non-physical aspects that laws were written to protect and encourage, as they are what provide strength to a society.

And in case you (or anyone else) is wondering, I'm a strictly heterosexual male. Sometimes painfully so, as I have to resist the urge to mentally undress a majority of the females I come in contact with. If they only knew, I'd probably be in traction by now, blogging via a Stephen Hawking-style keypad. :)

There are compelling legal arguments, expressed in some of the dissenting opinions by state courts, that dismiss the equal rights argument, i.e., every person already has the right to marry a person of the opposite sex.

Of course, there are exceptions, such as no marriage between close relatives, and marriage is limited to two individuals.

I suggest the arguments you advance above could be made against those exceptions. On what basis should we dictate that three or more people can't form a marriage, or two sisters, for example? What, from a legal standpoint, would or should distinguish those relationships from the relationships you describe?

Well, in the case of the theoretical polygamous marriage, and again in the absence of a medical power of attorney, there's the question of which (of the other two or more) spouses would be the "primary" to make a decision about treatment.

And in the "two sisters" scenario, there's also issues about conflicts of interest pertaining to family estate matters, such as: if they both inherited (or stood to inherit) monies or property as "surviving" children or grandchildren, and one of them falls ill...Then again, I guess as a legal spouse, she or she would inherit the other's stuff anyway, so...

And I know you're just throwing out what-ifs for argument's sake, but these types of scenarios have been used by opponents of same-sex marriage for some time, including (for God's sake) people marrying animals.

Aside from the gender aspect, the vast majority of gay relationships are just like everybody else's. Except for the way they're treated by society, of course.

The people marrying animals scenario is absurd. I've never used it and don't respect anyone who does.

All these other issues can be dealt with short of creating a new sort of marital relationship.

I have no problem personally with committed couples of whatever gender, but I'm wary of the implications that might follow a drmatic change in the basic definition and structure of marriage. Unlike the narrow majorities in three state supreme courts, I'm am not convinced there's a valid equal protection argument.