The backers of same sax marriage are arguing that same sex marriage is a civil rights issue. They claim it is a civil rights issue, because the decision by the state to outlaw such marriages creates an economic burden on those who are denied same sex marriage, because they do not have the same rights as those who are allowed opposite sex marriage.
This is a bogus arguement. Throughout the history of this country we as a society have chosen to limit, restrict, outlaw, or discourage, behavior, activities, or social and business arrangements. Many specific activities are licensed, or have specific requirments that must be met before they can be performed. I am not a trained physician, have not gone to medical school, and have not passed the states medical licensing boards requirements to become a practicing physican. I cannot get a license to practice medicine. Society has determined that they want only specifically trained physicans to practice medicine. Just because this places an economic burden on me does not mean that my civil rights have been violated.
The same could be said for many other licensed professions. I do not have a commercial drivers license, so I cannot drive a semi truck. I do not have a law degree and I haven't passed the bar exam, so I cannot practice law. There are any number of other occupations that I am unable to perform because I do not meet the minimum requirements set by the states. Each time that I am restricted from performing an activity, and economic burden is placed on me, and it does not violate my civil rights.
Some states in the US are right to work states, meaning that you can choose not to be a union member at a company that has been organized as a union shop. Some states do not afford me those same rights. If the company I work for is a union shop, then I AM REQUIRED to be a member of the union, and I am required to pay union dues. This creates an economic burden on me, as I am being forced to pay union dues when I do not wish to be a member of the union. This is not considered to be a violation of my civil rights, even though it creates an economic burden on me. If I am a union member then I am required to have the union be the SOLE bargining agent for me, and I am unable to bargain for my own terms and conditions of employment with my employer. This can impact my economic well being, but it is not considered to be a violation of my civil rights.
Society has always reserved the right to restrict certain parts of society, and same sex marriage is no different. No person is being treated differently. ALL PERSONS are free to be married, but if you choose to be married, it must be to a member of the opposite sex, and both people in the marriage must be of the age of legal maturity. Those are the restrictions placed by society upon the arrangement of marriage.
If it is deemed that society does not have the ability to set restrictions and limitations upon marriage, such as outlawing same sex marriage, then society does not have the ability to set any restrictions of any kind on marriage. Presently it is not legal for relatives closer than second cousins to marry. It is not legal for people to engage in multiple marriages at the same time. It is not legal for multiple people to engage to marriage together. It is not legal for an adult and a child to marry. Each of these restrict the exact same things as a ban on same sex marriage, and if banning same sex marriage is a civil rights violation then banning these are also civil rights violations.
Good people can disagree on the rightness or wrongness of same sex marriage. In the end though society has the final say. If society chooses to outlaw it then it is a REQUIREMENT of the elected officials to up hold that law. If they wantonly violate that law, they are in breach of their legal responsibilities and should be removed from office, and should be prosecuted for breaking the law. If your elected officals deliberately violate that social contract you are but one step removed from anarchy. That is the situation in the State of Oregon, because of the decisions by a group of four elected officals. The State of Oregon has decided that physician assisted suicide is legal. I personally find this law to be abhorrent, but the people of this society have decided that they are willing to allow it. That is part of the social contract I find highly offensive, but as a society we have decided to allow it. I have no choice but to accept that, which I do. The same goes for abortions. I may find to be offensive, but we as a society have allowed it be legal. As such I may find it offensive, and I can work to change it, but I would never condone or support the killing or injuring of a Dr. that chooses to perform it.
I also find ridiculous the latest arguements against a constitutional amendment identifying marriage as between a man and a women. The standard argument is that we should be careful about changing the constitution willy nilly. These are the same people who support the judicial activism that creates new constitutional rights out of thin air from the state and federal bench. These are also the same people who argue over and over that the constituion is a living breathing document, and must be added to and changed with the changes that happen in society. But when society wishes to specifically codify into the constitution what it deems to be specific parts of the social contract, those who wish to do so are engaging in a behavior that is bad for the society. In other words we should not decide for ourselves what we want our social contract to be, we should allow appointed judges to make those decisions for us.
