Marriage Rights Should be Determined by the States

One’s private morals should not govern other people’s private morals. The deciding factor as to what morals should be enforced is whether or not society would be too disrupted by not following these morals. For example, not murdering innocent people is a pretty good moral to uphold in law. It keeps everyone relatively safe. If gay marriage were to be legalized, it would not force those opposed to go and get married to others of the same-sex. It would not force them to attend same-sex weddings. It would not hurt anyone or diminish their quality of life. They can pretty much keep it out of their personal life if they wish. The Federal Government would not be enforcing a particular set of values by legalizing same-sex marriage any more than they do by allowing interracial couples, Muslims, Atheists, Christians, etc. to marry. It’s about keeping things fair and equal. No group should get special treatment over another group in this regard. Now, this is usually when opponents to gay marriage bring up the slippery slope debate. If we allow gay marriage then what would stop us from allowing an incestuous marriage or a polyamorous marriage or a marriage between a dog and a man. Well, as far as incestuous marriages go, the answer should be obvious. Incest can be a very harmful, and due to the power dynamics that exist in families, consent can be hard to discern. Family members can very easily take advantage of these power dynamics and manipulate other family members. This is very often how abuse occurs within family. Polyamorous marriages are a bit more complicated. If it’s a matter of a number of young girls being forced into marriage with an old guy, obviously that shouldn’t be encouraged. If it’s a matter of it being a completely consensual relationship between adults, those relationships don’t bother me. Though I don’t know how they would translate to a marriage. It seems like it would be pretty complicated not so much on a moral level, but more a legal and financial one. That’s for another discussion. As far as bestiality goes, animals can’t consent among other things. That should be pretty obvious. At the end of the day, if no one is being hurt, then I support people in doing what they want regardless of whether or not I personally agree with it. As far as gay marriage offending religious people go, the government does not recognize marriage as a religious institution. They can’t. They see it as a legal contract. Period. Americans may choose to have a religious ceremony and view their own marriage in a religious light, but they don’t have to. Atheists and other non-Christians can get married in all 50 states, I don’t see Christians trying to stop them from being married because it contradicts their personal views on marriage and religion. The 10th Amendment does not exist in a vacuum, you should also consider the 14th Amendment when reading it. States have power but they also have restrictions. You state in you resolution that “the states should be allowed to choose if they want to redefine marriage, institute civil unions with equivalent rights, or choose neither option.” This contradicts the 14th Amendment greatly. There are many rights, benefits, and protections that come with marriage that the states should not be able to deny gay people of having. The question is, how would legalzing gay marriage personally affect opponents of gay marriage?