People protest same-sex marriage bill outside Argentina's Congress in Buenos Aires on Tuesday. (Natacha Pisarenko/Associated Press) Read more: http://tinyurl.com/argentine-marriage

Argentina has just joined the club of nations that has legalized same-sex marriage. Yes, the nation that many stereotypically associate with overwrought machismo, and in which the Catholic Church still exerts considerable influence, has taken this radical move. It seems clear that the tide is turning, at least in the “West.” It’s turning here in the United States too, the setbacks like last year’s referendum in Maine and Prop 8 in California, or the large number of amendments to the constitutions of various states passed to protect the “sanctity of marriage” during the past 5-6 years.

I want to use this post to make a detached, rational argument why this is a good trend, based on fundamental American values about the nature of our government in relation to individual rights. It’s odd that someone with my political beliefs might make the argument on these terms, but ultimately it is a libertarian, perhaps even conservative argument. I’ll make no appeal to emotion, putting forth touching stories of nontraditional families or the devastation wrought by deeply held emotional ties are denied.

I’ll certainly make no case based on morality or religion, because I would not dare presume that I understand the existence and nature of the divine, let alone the mind of any divine being! I’ve always found it incredibly presumptuous that people who believe in an all-powerful, all-knowing Creator of all was, is and ever will be would presume to know the will of that creator on the most mundane of questions.

My argument appeals only to the laws of man, specifically those of our Constitution, and the principles upon which this nation was founded. Our Constitution specifies the Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion and, accordingly, both law enforcement and legislative bodies have been reluctant to interfere with religious institutions except in cases where it has been necessary to protect individual rights, or in which the good of society is involved. Examples of this may be compulsion in marriage, the abduction of individuals by a cult, criminal activity by the church, or property disputes between the church and individuals or secular institutions.  In terms of its own practices, churches have always operated rather freely. They have a right to practice exclusionary membership practices, for example.

Now, marriage has two components. It is regarded by most as a sacred right, the union blessed by God and accompanied by a ceremony officiated by a cleric. In order to secure the legal benefits of marriage, however, marriage must also be registered at the courthouse or City Hall. And in the eyes of the state (most of them, anyway), any duly licensed public official can perform the ceremony. In other words, marriage is a contract. By entering into it, a couple secures certain legal benefits and obligations.

However, tablets like Cheap Kamagra have browse over here viagra for been introduced into the market that supports all ladies to enjoy the fabulous hours with their spouse. These pills also enhance the mood, reduce stress, reduce anxiety, boost stamina and restore the cheap viagra libido. Anti-impotent medicines work by boosting the blood flow to the order generic cialis go now genital area and it is because thin blood vessels. The fascinating thing about this system is that even the really proficient medical staff could not resist in using this phenomenal low cost levitra supplement by themselves. This is a very important distinction. The government can compel no cleric or religious leader to perform a marriage. It can’t oblige any congregation or religious institution to accept a marriage. While clerics are permitted to perform marriages, they are not compelled to do so. Barring any legal impediments, a justice of the peace has to marry any couple that comes before him, regardless of their religious affiliation or lack thereof. The cleric does not. Two Baptists can’t go to a rabbi and demand that he officiate their wedding. Indeed the rabbi, an Orthodox rabbi perhaps, can refuse to officiate the weddings of other Jews or a more liberal bent. The Catholic Church certainly has conditions on which marriages they will recognize, as do most schools in Muslim theology.

It is not the place of Congress, the White House, a state legislature, the courts, or even the people in a popular referendum to protect the sanctity of marriage. The church defines that and it varies from faith to faith.

It is, however, the place of all of those and of each and everyone of us to protect the civil rights of each and every American, and to secure freedom of religion (as well as freedom from religion).

When laws exist limiting marriage rights, they not only interfere with individual rights before the law, but they are an unwarranted interference in religious affairs. Any given congregation has the right to choose which unions it will or will not recognize. There are, of course, exceptions. A person cannot be compelled to marry another, and those who the law sees as incapable of making a decision, such as minors, cannot marry either. Aside from that, however, if certain Episcopal or Unitarian congregations see fit to recognize same-sex unions, as they do in this country, I believe it is an unwarranted interference from the government to deny those unions.

I believe very strongly in the separation of church and state, individual rights, and in the necessity of restricting government interference in private affairs. I also believe that we are at our best as a nation when we are able to strike a balance between the will of the majority and protection of the rights of the minority and of the individual. It strikes me as odd that so many who believe in small government, as well as minimal legislative intervention in the free market and society more generally, so willingly accept government interference in this, perhaps one of the most important and fundamental questions of individual rights.

I’m certainly not a legal scholar, and am aware that a lot of history contradicts my argument. But we have a long history of de jure of slavery, segregation, denial of equal rights based on race, and that was so shockingly against the principles upon which this nation declared its independence, its nearly impossible to fathom.

So that’s my argument. What do you think?