Same Sex Marriage should be legal, because religious observance and parenthood are optional.

Arguments on issues as derisive as same-sex marriage should have a goal. Mine is not to denigrate or humiliate any opponent of same-sex marriage, as many upstanding and well-meaning citizens of the country are adverse to the notion of same-sex marriage, usually for religious reasons that demand that they remain dedicated to a certain set of principles. My goal is only to illustrate how two of the principal arguments against same-sex marriage have no consistent bearing on 'civil marriage', and therefore should be abandoned as reasons to pass or defend laws to prevent same-sex 'civil marriages' from being recognized by the State. I agree that citizens have an equal voice in the form of their vote. It is unrealistic to expect a people to divorce themselves of their deep religious convictions when presented with an option to uphold or reject an article of faith via ballot initiatives and public opinion polls. A Jewish majority could easily ban all consumption of pork products for a particular jurisdiction under a simple ballot initiative, without having to render secular arguments as a collective force. Likewise, if presented with a National vote to make pre-marital sex illegal, (or at the least a misdemeanor), a Christian majority would also be compelled to vote according to the precepts of their faith, rather than their own opinions or feelings on the issue. The inference that 'most religions' follow a generally similar ideology and process when it comes to the topic of marriage is not particularly useful, simply because they follow similar ideologies about premarital sex as well, and follow them without encouraging ballot initiatives to enforce their doctrines universally, even if the majority follows similar concepts on the issue. On the issue of blurring lines of law and faith, I believe I may have been unclear. I did not mean to convey the notion that religions communicate with each other on how they enforce their doctrines concerning dietary laws or other concept. I meant that these communities should consider the ease by which they are able to follow their own dietary laws without ballot initiatives to enforce the rules of their faith on the general population via 'majority rule'. Since laws governing marriage do not govern for whom a religion holds ceremonial rites, nor do they dictate who a religion should recognize as 'married', the legality of same-sex marriage should be handled in much the same way that many religions addresses the legality of interdenominational civil marriages. Although many typically do not allow such marriages as part of their faith, they do not act to restrict the general public from entering civil marriages recognized by the State. Furthermore, even majority rule has limits, otherwise there would not be a need for a constitution or Bill of Rights. Under the current system of checks and balances, the Court system is in place to protect the minority from decisions of the majority that contradict precepts set by a previous majority through the Constitution. Prohibition, increased voting ages, restrictions of women being able to vote, and even slavery can be reestablished in the United States, if and only if the majority acts to change the constitution to reflect such a change. When a majority enacts a law or policy against same-sex marriages, it can be challenged by a minority that wields the authority of a 'previous' majority through a citation of a violation of a statute set in a State or National Constitution. Therefore, if the majority feels as if same-sex marriage should not be allowed, then they need only change the Constitution of the United States to reflect that wish. Under the current (2011) Constitution of the United States of America, the argument has been made that bans against same-sex marriage stand in direct violation of Equal Protection and Due Process clauses, as well as Full Faith and Credit statutes set by the will of a previous majority in the United States to create such concepts. The validity of that particular argument is irrelevant to the current discussion, but it serves to illustrate how the will of the people of a past majority, as expressed in their changes to the United States Constitution can be defended in court by a minority against a 'current' majority who has not yet overruled the former majority through the Amendment process to the Constitution. At current, groups such as the National Organization for Marriage are trying quite diligently to prevent same-sex couples in several locations from enjoying legal marriage status. Unfortunately, these groups rely heavily on arguments concerning religion and parenthood, yet have no consistently applicable arguments or credible data to support their predictions about what happens to places that have legal same-sex marriage. I invite all readers to search for the online debate between Evan Wolfson and Maggie Gallagher on the 'Economist' to explore a multi-round debate between a same-sex marriage proponent and a founder of the National Organization for Marriage. I have had a wonderful time in this discussion, and I invite comments from all sides of the issue. I am also amiable to the prospect of being challenged to another debate on this issue, with a different focus. I will issue a charge to both sides of the conversation: Tailor your arguments to make a sincere attempt to cause the other person to abandon faulty arguments, rather than attempts to frustrate or insult the other person, their faith, or their relationship.