Does Marriage Defense Create a Slippery Slope?

Won't denying same-sex marriage open the door to taking away more rights? Whose rights are next?

My answer to these questions is below the fold.

[Make the jump if you want to read it.]

No "right" that depends on the cooperation of someone else is immune from being changed, restricted, or denied through legislation. That is a reality of government. Our Constitution was written with the understanding that we have certain natural rights based on our human nature – such as free speech – and that government should protect those rights or at least not work against them; it doesn't create or grant them. With speech, the government can only restrict it by physically restraining you; if the government does nothing, you retain your ability to speak freely. This is different from getting a state-issued license, where you require action by the government on your behalf.

A state-issued license is issued under the cooperation of the people of a state. If the people of a state do not, or no longer, consent to issue a license, or do not consent to changing how those licenses are issued, they are Constitutionally free to deny or rescind that "right" as long as the state does not illegally discriminate against individuals on the basis of such factors as sex. State marriage licenses can be accessed by both male and females, regardless of sexual orientation, so there is no problem there.

Yes, it is possible that future requests by behavioral minorities who want changes to laws applying to all of us for the sake of catering to their behavior may be denied by the people or our representatives. For example, drivers who really enjoy driving 110 miles per hour on a public road may want the speed limit changed, but we can say "no", even if driving 110 sexually arouses and fulfills the speeders.

In order to "take away" something under our federal Constitution, Congress must pass legislation that the President signs, or pass the legislation with enough votes to override a Presidential veto, and the legislation must withstand any challenges in the Judiciary. In some states, the people can pass the legislation directly. Then that has to be enforced by the actions by government agents.

Practically speaking, beyond a few crackpots with very little support, there is no movement to remove rights such as freedom of association, or to prevent a bride and groom from marrying based on their skin color, so it isn't a real danger.

Conversely, one could ask, what change is next beyond marriage neutering? If denying the neutering of state marriage licensing would provide some sort of momentum, does neutering marriage licensing provide momentum in a different direction? If so, what direction? Could it be what I have discussed in this previous message?