I never argued against representation. They should be there to fight off those that would infringe upon the sovereignty of their community, not to impose their community’s beliefs on others.
Is your argument that government or “The People” should be telling you how to raise your children?
People these days are trying to rule from the top down, rather than the bottom up. You are responsible for yourself and your family, first, no one else. Then you have the community, etc. You argue for mob rule at the national level. That argument will get you exactly the opposite of what you want.
If the majority of people in a state do not want homosexuality promoted publically by the state (public schools and other public institutions) to children then should they not have the right to make law saying such through their representation? And in contrast if the majority of a people in a state want to promote traditional marriage through conferring benefits on those who become married then shouldn’t they also have the right to make such law?
If not then why?
Also I am not arguing for mob rules at the national level. If the reality is that our right to representation is going to be taken away at the National level by the Supreme Court then I say we should amend the Constitution to correct the injustice caused by the Court. I do not favor handling it at a national level but I am aware that very well may be necessary.
I understand that your position is more libertarian in saying that the state should get out of the marriage business but there is one very serious flaw with that position and that is that the libertarian platform position of the “right to association” has been completely destroyed in this country. In other words we no longer have the right to hire who we choose or associate with whom we choose anymore without fear of a lawsuit. The only way to get that right back is through a new Constitutional amendment at the national level and there is no real movement to do that so the fight has to be to preserve our right to representation on these issues in a more conservative fashion then a libertarian one.
So in reality it is you who will get exactly the opposite of what you want by ending government involvement in marriage. The left-wing will continue to use the Courts to force everyone to associate themselves with homosexuality with threats of lawsuits of discrimination if not treated the way they think it should be.