As I contend in a related blog entry, I do not believe that the arguments supporting legislation against the legal recognition of homosexual marriages in the United States are consistent with the letter or the spirit of the U.S. Constitution. The pragmatic arguments against homosexual marriages are weak at best (particularly considering the dismal divorce rate in heterosexual marriages) and fail to justify current and proposed legislation on their own, leaving only the religious arguments underlying them---arguments which, of course, cannot legally be used to justify an act of Congress. Consequently, the burden of proof in the debate on the legislation lies not on the proponents to demonstrate that same-sex marriages should be acceptable but on the opponents to demonstrate, without resorting to hackneyed pseudo-religious dogma, that same-sex marriages both are economically or otherwise quantitatively detrimental to the public interest, and lead to the violation of individual rights. Unless such a basis can be offered, I offer that the current "Defense of Marriage Act", the proposed "Marriage Protection Act", and the many state-level imitations thereof are in diametric contradiction to the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
