Reverend Chapin, Steven den Beste, and Vincent M. Ferrari say for me most of what I want to say about same-sex marriage.

Certainly, a few things have changed about my stance on it. I am still a proponent of Same Sex Marriage. However, I can no longer argue it on an equal protection standpoint. I’m with the three sources I cited. First, if one is to err, one is to err on the side of liberty. Second, on pragmatic grounds. The institutional anarchy involved in letting the states decide how to handle SSM can rise to insane levels.

Finally, Congress itself is trying to undermine the existing checks and balances that we have just so that hoemoes will not marry where they choose to marry? Replace SSM with any social or economic issue and one could see the dangerous precedent that Congress is trying to enact with the Marriage Protection Act. Many, many social conservatives consider Congressional power to be the ultimate decision in matters of law, and yet, Executive Orders are matters of law too. Judicial Opinions are matters of law too. And Congress writes laws, and they can even overturn Executive vetoes. The checks and balances that some social conservatives hide behind are not as clear-cut-and-dried as they would want them to be, and any matter of law decided in any branch will always go under review. Now, Congress wants to remove the ability of federal courts to review federally enacted laws? Remarkable.

If there is one reason for my further proponence for SSM, it’s to cut through all the chaos so that we can focus on the real enemy for the coming decades, Jihadist Islam and its terrorist ways.