This would never have happened if Charlene and Kate were allowed to legally marry. Today, gay marriage is illegal in most states in America, and this is unconstitutional, as it is violating a fundamental right, which is marriage.
The most egregious thing about the issue of denying gay marriage is that there really is not a legitimate argument put forth by the other side which would substantiate keeping an entire class of people from enjoying basic rights. For instance, consider the “slippery slope” argument. This argument states that if homosexuals were allowed to marry, then the legislatures would have to legalize marriage between man and dog, man and daughter, man and 12-year-old boy. This argument does not hold water for two major reasons – one, marriage between two homosexuals is sanctifying a consensual relationship, and all the other scenarios above would not be. And, two, perhaps most importantly, pedophilia, incest and bestiality are all illegal, probably in all fifty states. Homosexual relationships, on the other hand, are not, and cannot be due to the case of Lawrence v. Texas, a 2003 Supreme Court case which established that sodomy laws are unconstitutional. Therein lies a difference – legislatures cannot be pressured to legalize marriage based upon relationships which are illegal, such as pedophilia, incest and bestiality, therefore the slippery slope argument is not legitimate. Another argument is that marriage is based upon procreation, and, since homosexuals cannot procreate, they should be denied the right to marry. This argument cannot be logically consistent, because, if the argument were to carried out to its logical conclusion, anybody and everybody who would be unable or unwilling to have children would also be denied the right to marry. Your grandmother in the nursing home who met her soul mate at the age of 86? Sorry, grandma, you can't marry because you can't have children anymore. Your sister who had ovarian cancer and had to have a hysterectomy? Sorry, sis, you can't marry either, because you are unable to have children. This is the logical extension of the ?ays can't marry because they cannot procreate argument,one that the supporters of this argument must adopt if they are to be logically consistent. Of course, the other major argument is that homosexuality is proscribed by the Bible, but this is not a justification for denying a constitutional right. Roe v. Wade4 established this, as it states that morality is not a legitimate concern upon which to base a law that affects one's fundamental rights. And besides, if legislatures are going to start basing their laws on Biblical proscriptions, then they are going to have to outlaw drinking and getting rowdy at Sunday football games, as this would be desecrating the Sabbath, and this is an offense punishable by death according to Exodus 31:14.5 As for the argument that allowing homosexuals to marry would undermine the sanctity of marriage exhibit A to refute this argument would be Kim Kardashian. If her sham of a marriage, 72 days long, is not undermining the sanctity of the institution of marriage, then what is? Of course, it would be unfair to single her out, as there have been countless celebrities whose marriages lasted well short of a year. Not to mention Elizabeth Taylor, who was married eight times. These are just celebrities there are countless people who are not famous who are in the same predicament. Who doesn't have an uncle with five ex-wives? In short, heterosexuals