There is a legitimate, rational reason to prohibit same sex marriage in the United States

As far as the states are concerned, they have reasons, but another one of your rules states that religion or and references to Leviticus 18:22 wasn't a "rational" remark, so I have an unfair handicap. (Texas has never made gay marriage legal, so I would assume they would have religiously implied such reasons when it was first brought up.) Even if you may find religious reason illegitimate, or irrational, it's obvious that it was allowed anyways, because it still exists. And the government cannot take any more rights away from the states, imagine the tyranny that would happen if the rights we were so proven to have were to suddenly be taken away. The argument that same sex marriage, nationally, should be prohibited is a good enough, legitimate, rational reason. It may not answer the "whys" you have, but having the rights enough should be unquestionable. (But it's America, so you are free to question, and that's the beauty of it.) This statement from https://backuphill.wordpress.com... hits me: "American democracy, as it was designed, is dead. At the very least, it"s on life support and has been for a while. If we are not careful, we are not going to be able to revive it and the Founding Fathers" efforts to give it to us will be lost. As the story goes, Benjamin Franklin was leaving the Constitutional Convention in 1787 and was asked by a woman if the new government was a republic or a monarchy. It was reported that without hesitation he responded, "A republic, if you can keep it." So, what exactly did he mean and do we need to heed his warning today? Today, if you walked down the street of any American city and asked any average citizen what kind of government we have in America today you would likely hear from nine out of ten people, "A democracy." That answer, to a degree is correct. A democracy is "a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections." (1b) That other person (I am being optimistic here), the one out of ten, would answer "a democratic republic." This answer would be more correct. A republic is "a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law." (1b.1) America is both a democracy and a republic. Or, at least it was. I say "it was" because I am beginning to believe that it may no longer be. We the people, I think, like to pretend that we still have a democratic republic but does the "supreme power" really rest in the hands of the people? I would argue that it does not. What do we really have? It is now more of an oligarchy. An oligarchy is "a government in which a small group exercises control especially for corrupt and selfish purposes." (2) Thomas Jefferson once said, "Liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it [be]comes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism " ownership of the government by an individual, by a group." (NOTE: Jefferson was not talking about fascism in the WWII sense that we tend to think of it today. He was talking about it more in the economic sense.) The key part I want to focus on is that our government is now run by a small group of elites, by a group of people who have tremendous economic wealth and through that wealth "own" the government. Let"s first start with the distribution of wealth in our country. To understand this argument, you have to start here because wealth is the means to power." So, an America ruled by any other form of government, whether it be fascism, Nazism, socialism, or oligarchy, will never survive. I will keep my argument of states' rights, because, as I have stated already, that is a rational enough reason to prohibit national same-sex marriage. An oligarchy that overrules this will only result in tyranny. And the more the Supreme Court pushes it's oligarchy powers, the more unhappy everybody else will be. I don't mean everybody as in the homosexuals. I mean, everybody in America. If our government were to change, we would become vulnerable to revolts, vulnerable to war, vulnerable to succumb to higher powers (in other words, be invaded and taken over.) While my last paragraph may have been extreme, I will keep my argument on the fact that the individual rights of the states is a rational explanation enough to prohibit [national] gay marriage.