The constitution is the guiding document, nowhere in the constitution does it address gay marriage.
Using this logic, one could dream up any sort of argument to justify government intrusion into peoples lives.
Now, should we pass a constitutional amendment protecting marriage between one man and one woman....YES. This would be a constitutional process in which to amend the law of the land...I'm all for it.
But until then, follow the dedgum Constitution and stop this ever growing beast called the federal government.
I am making a different point than what you address:
>>Hurting traditional marriage will
.... hurt our culture ...
... which degrades the ethics of self-responsibility ...
... which makes people turn to “Uncle Sam” for paternalistic nanny-statism
... which hurts the Constitution, based on limited govt.<<
THAT IS MY POINT. if you want limited govt, then DEFEND MARRIAGE AS IS. This is what Libertarians dont get, the CULTURAL CONDITIONS FOR LIBERTY REQUIRES STRONG SELF-RELIANT SOCIAL MORES AND FAMILY VALUES. Marriage supports that, dissolving marriage hurts that. If men were amoral monsters, you’d need a police state to keep people in line.
Defining marriage a between one man and one woman is NOT an intrusion, it is merely a societal standard defined in law, and thereby buttressed by law.
If you dont want to get married, you dont have to, so marriage is not an intrusion.
SB777, people like WOSG don’t understand that, as a door can swing in two directions, a federal court that can give you whatever you want under “separate but equal” and “right to contract” can just as easily take it away with “penumbras and emanations.” The problem has arisen because we’ve allowed judges to become fiction writers creating federal rights that must be upheld. In the past, this was accomplished with contraception and abortion, and now the left has moved on to a federal right to gay marriage, which will now be imposed on the states. The same stupidity on the left is present in people on the right when they both try to create rights to enforce federally, when they should be fighting for federalism. Federal courts that removed themselves from jurisdiction over state laws would at least allow people to MOVE if a state court were to try to impose some truly outlandish ‘right,’ say, a right to pederasty for their children, or a right for children to divorce their parents (not wholly impossible given UN and gay tendencies). Scalia is far inferior to Thomas in failing to stand up for this federalist separation of powers.