[quote author="caycifish" date=1225691567][quote author="WINEX" date=1225680076][quote author="caycifish" date=1225679028][quote author="WINEX" date=1225658830][quote author="caycifish" date=1225634558]Last time I checked, our constitution applied to 3D human beings.</blockquote>
The last time I checked, the US Constitution didn't mention the word "marriage"...</blockquote>
"Equal", dude. Equal.</blockquote>
Take a look at the 9th and 10th amendments. They've got it covered.</blockquote>
To be clear, I was talking about our state constitution. But whatever. I'm over it.</blockquote>
OK, I was referring to the US Constitution. As someone who is relatively new to the state, I will admit not knowing much about the state constitution. But I do believe this is a matter for the states, not the federal government.
Of course things get more convoluted when the government injects itself in areas it should stay out of. If marriage was simply a union between two or more people (we can't forget the polygamists!), then it would be easy to say that the state shouldn't even be involved in licensing the practice. But the government has gotten involved in things such as Social Security and Medicare, and benefits aren't just based on what an individual has contributed to the system. The state has long used tax code to promote activities it deems beneficial to society and restrict activities it deems harmful to society. By forcing an issue like gay marriage on society, the courts are saying that the government should subsidize deviant behavior that is harmful to the mores of society.
And, of course, if the state promotes one alternative lifestyle, why should it stop there? What about polygamy? Incest? Why shouldn't the state be forced to recognize all alternative "lifestyles"?