The Other Side of the Marriage Argument

[Geee]

American Thinker:

In the 2012 election, three states voted successfully to broaden the definition of marriage to include two members of the same sex. In addition to Maine, Maryland, and the state of Washington passing referenda permitting gay marriage, Minnesota repealed by referendum a previous restriction against it.

With the Supreme Court deciding this week whether or not to hear arguments at the federal level on the constitutionality of such unions, arguments for and against same-sex marriage are sure to rear their boisterous heads again.

But while some opponents of "marriage equality" will certainly use the parallel argument of the slippery slope -- which, on principle alone, could potentially further broaden the definition of marriage to legalize polygamy and incest -- few have considered the implications of the reverse side of the argument.

The central question to the argument is whether or not the 14th Amendment's "equal protection" clause prohibits states from defining marriage -- as recognized by the state -- as between one man and one woman, since such a definition would restrict certain persons from pursuing such a contract with the objects of their affection. More popularly, the question is posed as "Why can't two people who love each other get married if they want to?"

If the Supreme Court rules that the 14th Amendment denies the sovereign states the ability to determine who enters into state-recognized marriages, eventually the same question on the matter of divorce must be raised.