Our government...

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness"

So begins the declaration of independence. It states, rather succinctly in my opinion, a set of core principles upon which our country was founded. It doesn't cover all the principles one might say we had or have, but it's enough to get me started anyway.

I had a discussion today about the court ruling in California that overturned the voter initiative to outlaw gay marriage. The person I was talking to was of the opinion that it is wrong for a single judge to overturn the will of the people and that in particular, it was wrong for a gay judge to rule on this case. I felt she was wrong on both points.

On the matter of overturning the will of the people, I tried to point out that we aren't supposed to be ruled by the will of the majority in this country. We the people give to the government limited powers in order to secure our own rights (see above). The law should be blind when it comes to rights and securing them equally.
I tried to point out that it wouldn't be right if she was on an island with 100 cannibals and they all voted on what to eat for lunch. Clearly it's not right of them to eat her and they shouldn't even be allowed to vote on such a thing. The very idea is barbaric, immoral, and certainly it's contrary to the founding principles above. She has a right to life and that can't be voted on. She wanted to say that she would just be lunch and that's the way it is. I however disagree that such a vote is in any way moral or deserving of respect; and it certainly doesn't fall in line with what the founding fathers intended. I tried to point out that we are supposed to live in a republic and not a democracy. We aren't supposed to vote on just anything, just like we shouldn't vote on who to eat for lunch. The government is endowed with it's just, and limited, powers by the people to secure their rights. It is a well agreed upon right that we have the right to live, so it's clear that the government shouldn't be voting on who to kill. If a judge were to overturn the vote of the cannibals and tell them that they can't eat her, that judge would be right for overruling them even though the vote was 100 to 1!

At this point the issue seemed to be one of what "marriage" is. She wanted to say that it was a union of one man and one woman and that's the way it's always been and that's what the voters wanted so we should respect that.
I, on the other hand, recognize that either marriage get's it's meaning from a higher authority, which makes it a religious matter the state can't be involved with, or it is just a word that we the people define and alter to meet our needs. I suppose there might be other possibilities, but I'll focus on those, as they seem obvious to me.

If there is a god and he said what marriage is, then the state has no place in giving benefits or special status to followers of that particular religion. The law needs to treat us all equally. So, if the state did create a special status it called "marriage" and gave those married people special tax status, and special insurance rates, and special services it would have no choice but to allow that special status to be applied to all pairs of people who wanted to choose it or else it would be playing favorites with religion...and that's a big no no according to the first amendment and it's also obviously wrong according to the principles in the opening of the declaration of independence whereby all the people are securing their equal rights, not special rights for some. I happen to know there are religions and even Christian sects that respect and allow for gay marriage, so it's not even like there is some sort of universal understanding that god defined marriage one way or another.

The other possibility is that marriage is just a word we use to describe the union of two people. If it's just a word, then there is no reason we can't adapt that word to be inclusive and insure equal rights. Stop and think about what it means if gays can't have marriage status in the states eyes. It makes it complicated, if not impossible to establish inheritance rights, shared property rights, medical proxy status, and tax status, not to mention your ability to pay for insurance and other products.

Now, most of the time, it should be possible to jump through hoops and establish contracts between yourself and a gay partner that does give you inheritance rights, medical proxy rights, and perhaps some other things granted by a marriage contract. The ability to do these things, and the ease of doing them, will vary a lot by state. In contrast, all of this is taken care of at once with a marriage contract and as a bonus you'll also qualify for special tax status and the new found "right" to purchase products for spouses or participate in programs that require spouses.

It seems clear to me that by preventing some people from getting "married" in the eyes of the state, we are clearly playing favorites and limiting the rights of those who are not permitted.

At this point some people might choose to point out that "gay" people are free to marry a member of the opposite sex and get the same recognition from the state as the rest of us. So ha! They aren't limited! neener neener boo boo.
To that, I must ask what make a person a man and what makes a person a woman? Do I need a penis to be a man? What if I lost mine in an accident? What if I wasn't born with one?
Or, what if I'm not a simple XY, or XX baby? It's more common than you might think: http://www.isna.org/faq/frequency
Such a person would lack, what is fundamentally, the trait we generally use to determine gender and such a person would thus be prevented, by law, from establishing the same legal status that "normal" men and women can get.
No matter how small this pool of people is, it should be clear that a law that says you can marry a member of the "opposite" sex simply doesn't apply to these people as they don't have an opposite or they may have both sexes at the same time!

Oh sure...we could let these people just choose to be categorized as a M or an F....but now look what we've done...we've given a special privilege to these people! I can't choose to be an F! Certainly not without a lot of medical work.

No matter how ya slice it, you're going to end up denying rights to some people. Marriage, when limited to being between 1 man and one woman, creates a special class of people with special rights and that just simply doesn't jive with morality and it doesn't line up with the founding principles of this country.

Let the gay people marry. Let anyone marry anyone they like, be it XX, XY, XXY or any other chromosome combo. It doesn't hurt the straight or "normal" people at all. It doesn't hurt "traditional families" in any provable or objective way. All we know for sure it does is make certain people second class citizens to leave it the way it is.