One-by-one, in state after state, the force of the Federal Courts’ determination to uphold the US Constitution’s “equal protection” clause, has toppled laws banning same-sex marriage. And this trend has now moved into some of the most conservative of venues, Texas being the latest example.
The blow-back from the right has been altogether predictable; i.e. it’s a “violation of the will of the people”, “what happened to our state’s rights”, more “activism” from judges “legislating from the bench”, and of course “we’ll appeal”.
You have to love the irony in all these laments and rants, coming as they do from a large swath of our populace who profess to being great defenders of the Constitution. If only they took the time to read it. If only they opened their minds to an understanding of how it is the responsibility of the federal government to make sure that everyone’s rights are protected; that states’ rights do not allow for discrimination no matter how large the majority in any state might want it.
As has been referenced at this site in previous blogs, it was James Madison, one the most prominent of our Founding Fathers, who warned against a “tyranny of the majority” who would impose their will on minorities in direct violation of the Constitution’s “equal protection” clause. Indeed, that very clause exists to protect minorities from just such “tyranny”.
Every discriminatory law that is struck down moves us closer to that “more perfect union” that our founders envisioned where we all are equal under the law, with no exceptions based on race, creed or gender-preference.
Puzzle Guy Politics 
To me marriage laws are to protect the rights of inheritance and benefits that laws have given the union. I understand that some unions may seem wrong. Inbreeding or incest. Mother and son or father and daughter. Maybe even cousins. What about several spouses? Don’t some religions allow or even promote multiple unions? Marriage that seems unnatural to some makes sense to others that want to live in a committed relationship; marriage. Just because you don’t plan to have or can’t have children together doesn’t make it unlawful or non religious. What about older couples that are past child baring age? What about opposite sex marriages when one is homosexual and lives a lie because sociality doesn’t understand? Here is a question. What if you live together and announce you are married? Common law marriage; right? Does that apply to homosexuals? Laws that apply to one class and not others are always in question. Is there are law on how old you have to be to get married? What if a parent gives permission for their young child to marry? Don’t Muslims marry much younger that Christians? Who regulates relationships? Those two shouldn’t be together! Ever hear that?
Jim Connell
Interesting that you bring up multiple unions. The courts recently ruled that a Utah man can have one wife and as many partners as he chooses so long as those “extra” relationships are consensual which, apparently they are. As to your final question “Who regulates relationships?” the obvious answer is “The state” with laws that may be discriminatory given all the different scenarios, arrangements and possibilities that you brought up. It will be no surprise at all if some of those laws get tested in court (e.g. two under-age Muslims who are US citizens want to marry based on their religion).
Slowly, we are moving in the right direction. It will take time, but more importantly, as people share honestly who we are, including our sexual orientation, we will come to know each other as whole persons. In knowing our brothers and sisters personally, we see that our similarities far outweigh our differences.
+The pace of change is maddeningly slow, but at least it is happening. You are right; we are much more alike than different.