What's the big deal about gay marriage? Why do we have marriage laws at all?

This is a comment on this site’s column concerning gay marriage.

Americans seem willing to fight over this issue without tackling the root cause of why people are against it - namely, RELIGIOUS opinion. Why and where ANYONE got the idea that the purpose of marriage is procreation is beyond me, since the Bible specifically states that marriage was created for COMPANIONSHIP and UNION(“And God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make an help meet for him”). Procreation can be a result of SEX, but it most certainly is not now nor has it ever been the chief cause for marriage. Second, Adam specifically stated exactly WHY Eve qualified as a mate for him. NOT because of her genitals or her ability to procreate, but because “this is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh.” Every single human being is descended from Adam and Eve and are therefore bone of his bones and flesh of his flesh and THIS is what qualifies a marriage regardless of what genitals anyone has.

Homosexuals were NEVER denied their right to marriage because they could not procreate. Gay marriage prohibitions have always been driven by discrimination because people falsely believe that homosexual identity is a deviation and therefore not a natural right. Ignorant people are under the mistaken belief that homosexuals are merely perverted heterosexuals and should not be protected. That’s as ridiculous as saying that left-handed people are merely perverted right-handers.

I think the thing that disgusts me the most over the gay marriage issue is that our government and citizens are under the false assumption that they have power to grant and deny human rights. If anyone will take the time to read the Declaration of Independence they will see that the entire charge against King George was that he dared presume this power. NO ONE has the power to dictate to another person what rights they think they do or do not have based on religious interpretation, or any other reason. If a person believes that homosexuality is a sin, then by all means that person should not live a life contrary to their beliefs - but this does NOT give them the right to enforce that personal view on others BY LAW. The U.S. is a constitutional republic, not a theocracy nor a democracy. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land - not religious books nor religious interpretation. It is CRIMINAL that anyone thinks that they have the power to VOTE on another person’s rights, to impose personal views on others by law, and to force subjective morals on society. The legal institution of marriage in the United States is a CIVIL - NOT RELIGIOUS - institution. Marriage licenses are issued by civil, not religious, authority. The United States government has no legal ground to bar homosexuals from the marriage institution. All sovereign citizens must be treated as equal without special treatment, such as the special right to marry that heterosexuals currently enjoy. There is no cause to deny marriage protection to ANY two unrelated consenting adult human beings. Majority Rule does NOT exist when it comes to human rights. Had Abraham Lincoln relied on majority opinion, blacks would still be in chains. But in fact Lincoln ACKNOWLEDGED that blacks have an inherant and inalienable human right to equality and justice and freedom WITHOUT REGARD to subjective public opinion. So it is with gay marriage.

The link: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/000128.html

You might want to extend your argument to include societies that allow (encourage?) a man to divorce a wife, or take another, when no male heir has been produced.

If rights are to exist, isn’t it necessary to define them? What would be the status of, say, freedom of speech, or of the press, in the US without their mention in the Constitution? Do you find that these rights exist in countries where there is no system of law to enact them?

How does your argument arrive at the number two here?

Who else is going to do it?