Statists should support this bill. After all, is proposition 8 not the will of the people?
Do not the majority have the right to pass laws which affect the whole of society, minorities included?
If the state has the legitimate authority to claim de-facto ownership over nearly half of the product of one's labor, and already establish numerous laws and statues governing human behavior, why shouldn't the government decide who gets to run around with the title of 'marriage' and who doesn't?
See what i love about social issue debates is that people tend to be far less prone to authoritarian tendencies, and argue with much cooler heads than topics of economics or foreign policy.
a pragmatic person interested in the 'rights' of minorities while at the same time fearful of trying to undermine democracy by saying that 'certain things the majority cannot vote away' might say to leave the issue of gay marriage to the states, because people in the same state probably have similar social veiws to those in other states.
More socially liberal states can allow for gays to feel happy because they can run around with the title of marriage and all of the ego benefits it brings, and socially conservative states can feel secure knowing that the sanctity of the term marriage (Which has itself been completely discredited over the years) is left in tact.
but then it might make more sense to do it on a per county basis, since the people living in one part of one state, (for instance, California) probably have different social views than those in other parts of the state, and people living in the same county probably have more uniform social views. This has the added benefit of radical changes in social policy being less potentially ruinous to individuals living in those counties, if they ever had to move, it might not require moving very far.
of course if you took this to it's rational conclusion, one would have to say that the most optimal solution to the social problem is to have these issues done on the most local of levels, to that of villages or hamlets, and in this way home buyers can factor in social law legislation in those towns when they move, and not be forced to live in other states or worse, other countries, just to live in a place that is more tollerant of their lifestyles. You are far more likely to get a consensus of 90% of people or more agreeing to a particular proposal because they all share a similar social background, in a hamlet, then a conesnsus of 90% of everyone in a country of 300 million, where the cultural differences amongst Americans are nearly comparable to that of European states.
This solution also makes the issue of gay marriage less of a psychodrama. You wouldn't have people going insane trying to impose their 'system' upon millions of total strangers because individual sovereignty is maximized.
In reality what i have just described is perhaps a crude model of what occurs in a market, individuals or small groups deciding amongst themselves and only themselfs what the arrangements will be, rather than forming 51% percent gangs and forcing other people who have nothing in common with them, to live and act the way THEY want them do.
