Political: Supreme Court and Gay Marriage

Here it goes...

Recently, the US Supreme Court has decided to take up the issue of gay marriage.  No, marriage is not a right.  What is with the US (post 1960s) trying to declare that absolutely everything is a right?  

I really don't see how this is remotely an issue for the federal government (state governments, yes).  If they actually make a ruling one way or another, I would consider it a bad ruling.  As I see it, the only responsible thing they could do is say it is up to the states/voters in those states.

It would be one thing if I really believed the gay community really wanted marriages, but I see this mostly as a political attempt to throw this down people's throats (more than a genuine expression of love and commitment), especially religion.  You will probably see an abnormally high in these early homosexual marriages anyway).  This just seems to be more about fiscal benefits.  In other words, I view the homosexual community using marriage more of a political statement than a declaration of love and commitment.   

I really don't see why anyone would want marriages (i'm just skewed that way).  You can have a loving committed relationship (pair bond) without a government piece of paper.  I guess that is just to say that for the last few years I've had my doubts about the institution of marriage.  Some of this deals with high divorce rates, community property, child support issues, etc.    

At the state level, marriage is (and has been) mostly defined as a reproductive unit.  Of course, the homosexual community would not fit this definition.  However, the Supreme Court justices asking about stuff like infertile couples are kind of missing the point too - and dragging the debate down into useless minutiae.  It wasn't supposed to be on a case by case couple (by fertility) - that would be even more expensive. 

The point is that it takes a male and a female to procreate.  The marriage thing set certain guidelines within that context.  For example: no plural marriages, no close relative marriages, etc.  Comparing an infertile straight couple to a homosexual couple really misses the point.  It is true that the infertile couple may not be able to reproduce, but the standard is a catch-all gender based rule.  It is irrelevant if one couple in 100 or whatever is infertile.       

However it wouldn't be the first time that the US Supreme Court made a ruling that oversteps their bounds.  There was Roe vs Wade (it is not a right if it contravenes a natural process - like pregnancy after the fact).  In fact, most of the landmark Supreme Court rulings were oversteps of power.