re: #118 Ian G.

I’ll give that a try (a secular argument against SSM - not that I agree with it):

Legislatures can enact criminal laws that are malum in se or malum prohibitum. Some crimes are evil on their face that the criminality is easily understood (think rape, murder, etc.).

Some crimes are regulatory in nature, and homosexual relations are in the latter category. The legislature, based on societial norms and standards has determined that these relationships are illegal, just as it has found that underage sexual relations is illegal - as between someone who is 16 and someone who is 18 or older (malum prohibitum rather than malum in se).

The argument that denying SSM in the case of DOMA violates the Equal Protection clause is flawed because Congress regularly determines the eligibility for federal benefits (by income level, child dependents, other dependends, etc.) Congress by its legislative power can determine the eligibility for federal benefits as it sees fit, and if it wishes to address this in the future, it should do so (rather than have the court dictate from the bench).

There ya go.

By doing so, they are furthering a societial good.