Challenging the constitutional status of marriage

I read an article on the internet about marriage. It brought up an interesting concept about the state of marriage today. The article outlines the states' power to issue marriage licenses, and, with the onset of gay marriage challenges, the states' very authority to issue marriage licenses at all, could be found to be invalid.

In the gay and straight debate over the legal definition of marriage, both sides actually could lose.

The debate about the definition of marriage is based on the states' long-standing power to license, conduct and regulate marriages. We know that power has always been presumed constitutional. But that may have ended 32 years ago without notice.

Before gay marriage was an issue, there were few challenges to the states' regulation of marriage because the regulation seemed to match the majority's religious sentiments. However, a changing society and the gay community's quest for the license to marry have changed that.

There would be no controversy if the power to license, conduct and regulate marriages was not assumed by the state. But, because the state is the authority on "legal" marriage, state definitions of marriage cause controversy when individuals or groups with new or divergent definitions feel discriminated against.

Gee, wouldn't it make gays even more loved by society if we managed to completely blow marriage out of the water for every body? That won't happen. From a constitutional point of view, marriage could be in trouble from many angles. Basically, marriage today is like a club membership. The origins were based in religion. Today, the state and federal governments have issued many government sanctioned privileges for marriage. Herein lies the problem. How can you constitutionally deny some members of the population the rights and privileges of marriage when they cannot legally marry in the first place?

The article states that both gays and straights could lose the rights of marriage if marriage rights are challenged. But that's inaccurate because gays have nothing to lose in this battle. We don't currently have the rights associated with marriage. How can you lose what you don't have?

On a more emotional and personal level, I don't think that people realize just how humiliating and degrading it feels to be a second class citizen. Society said for years that gay people were too promiscuous and were unable to establish long-term relationships. Those are all stereotypes. The exact same thing can be said for the straight community.

I will tell you from personal experience that it is hard to keep a long term relationship intact. This is true for everyone. When two gay people try to establish that same relationship, they get no recognition. There is no wedding, reception, anything. Their relationship must survive solely on it's own merits. That's tough. It's ironic that society feels the need to prevent gay relationships from receiving the recognition of marriage, when it has repeatedly stated that gays have no interest in relationships.

People take the rights and privileges of marriage for granted. Those of us who don't have those rights are forced to try to enforce marriage rights through documents such as wills, living wills, power of attorney, etc. All of the issues of these documents are dealt with in marriage. People who are currently afforded those rights are not going to stand still and let those rights be taken away from them because the institution of marriage has been found to be unconstitutional.