At lunch today a colleague of mine was lamenting the result of Issue 1 in Ohio (our much-talked about anti-gay-marriage amendment). He said there should be some way to strike this down. The state he says shouldn't have the right to tell people who they can and can't marry.

I agree, but I decided to play a little devil's advocate. I asked him if he thought people should be allowed to be plumbers or barbers without the state being involved. He said "no," because there is some "rational basis" for those state regulations. I asked why gays have a right to marry but people don't have the right to cut hair to make a living. He said that's just different. Hmmmm.

Anyway, I also argued that 65% of the people in Ohio apparently think there IS some "rational basis" for prohibiting gay marriage. He said no there isn't and we need some group of experts (i.e., courts) to determine which laws have a rational basis (i.e., ones he agrees with) and which laws don't (i.e., ones he disagrees with). Plato would love him.

This is the big problem for modern liberals. They have used the power of the democratic state to interfere in the rights of people so much for the past hundred years that they no longer have any credibility to make rights-based arguments. That same democracy that has given them their beloved minimum wages (and a whole host of other left wing laws) now gives them these hated gay marriage bans. I'm sorry folks it's too late to cry foul now. You are reaping what you sowed.

My bottom line: if you think two gays should be allowed to marry without state interference, then you should also think it's ok for someone to cut your hair without a barber's license. If you think the democratic process should control who cuts your hair, then you should not be too upset when it also determines who you marry.