Gay Marriage Is a Fundamental Right

I know I've talked about this issue before, but listening to certain Cato Institute podcasts just reminds me that certain issues merit re-visiting.  Ted Olson is a great spokesperson for advocating for gay marriage because not only did he used to work for Bush 43, but he was the one who won Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court case that favored Bush in the 2004 general election.  Why would I, as well as Olson, go as far as saying that gay marriage is a right?

• As I have explained in the past, we need to differentiate between a false and actual fundamental right.  If natural rights are fundamental, then my fundamental rights cannot conflict with those of Joe Schmo.  Marriage, in its simplest form, is a contract between consenting individuals stating that they commit themselves to one another.  This contract, i.e. marriage, does not conflict with anybody else's right to life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness.  Therefore, from a natural rights perspective, gay marriage is a natural right.  
• The case of Loving v. Virginia (1967) already proved that under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, marriage is a fundamental right.  Forty years later, Mildred Loving, one of the plaintiffs in the case, stated that the religious beliefs of some individuals should not impede on one's civil rights.  And yes, she said that includes gay people!  Has the Supreme Court ruled specifically on gay marriage?  Not at this time.  But when it does, I am willing to predict when it rules in the favor of civil rights, Loving v. Virginia will be cited.  
• Many individuals who are anti-gay marriage because "we're not taking religion or Jesus into account" forget that if we did, we would be violating the anti-establishment clause of religion that is in the First Amendment of the Constitution.
• Procreation cannot be a reason to ban gay marriage.  Can you imagine trying to regulate marriage based on the prerequisite of procreation?  Infertile couples, elderly couples, or couples simply with no intent on having children would have to be barred from marriage.  Something tells me that public policy wouldn't be enacted on that level.  
• "Marriage between one man and one woman--it's the way we've always been doing it."  I'm going to forget for two seconds that in the history of marriage in Western civilization, a man has been able to marry a twelve-year old girl, one could not marry outside his religion, socio-economic class, or race, or the fact that marriages used to be arranged.  Yes, marriage used to be very different!  Using an argumentum ad anitquitatem is a logical fallacy.  Just because something has always been done a certain way does not make it correct.  

If the notion of two men or two women being together seems disgusting for certain individuals in society, that's just too bad for them.  Gay marriage is a natural right.  It is a civil right.  To deny homosexuals this right is tantamount to saying that blacks are not equal to whites or that women are not equal to men.  Even with the progress made in the past few years (i.e., a majority of Americans for the first time are in support of gay marriage), it's still going to be a fight for homosexuals to have their natural rights ensured by the government.