Should the Government legalized Gay marriage?

This is an interesting debate question.
Currently, this is a debate that is ongoing in several states. Opponents of gay marriage argue that there is a strong government interest in preserving the traditional family. The extension of this argument is that gay marriage would degrade family values and break down the importance of the traditional family.
Supporters of gay marriage argue that this is a myth.
In fact, the traditional family has evolved over the years. It's hard to define the traditional family in modern times. Are we talking about mom and dad and the kids, or is it mom, dad, step-mom, step-dad, and the half brothers and sisters. It's arguable that if allowed to marry, gay couples may cherish their hard won rights, resulting in a lower divorce rate amongst gay couples.
Opponents of gay marriage also point out that gay couples can avail themselves to a civil union which carries all the same rights as marriage. This is an interesting argument that certainly cuts both ways. If marriage and civil union are the same thing, then the same argument can be used to argue on behalf of legalizing marriage for gay couples. What's the difference, if it truly is the same thing. Consider the flip side for heterosexual couples. Calling my wife a civil partner just doesn't have the same ring.
Philosophy aside, what is a state's interest in marriage? Traditional marriage was invented in religion, however the government also has a legitimate interest in recognizing marriage in the law. The government interest in marriage is fundamentally in recognizing the property interest between a married couple. Without the legal recognition of marriage, the succession of property becomes problematic when someone passes away. Consider a non-married couple with a child born out of wedlock. If the father of the child passes away, the mother of the child would not be entitled to any property from the father. The minor child would likely inherit. However, if the couple were married, then the wife would have a property interest.
The government should have a strong interest in legitimizing these property rights amongst all couples who wish to tie the proverbial knot.
Lastly, consider the equal protection arguments. If there's no argument against allowing a legal civil union, which supposedly carries all the same rights as marriage, then why single out a single group of people to say that they can't use the word marriage to describe their union?

Arizona Immigration Law Ruling: What Happens Now?

The news today is greeted with mixed results. While the opponents of the law are celebrating, it is tampered by the realization that Arizona is filing an expedited appeal. Expect that the legal battle will continue for some time to come.
But in reality, a great portion of the law will still go into effect. Expect that there will be no sanctuary cities in Arizona. Also, the law will provide stricter restrictions against hiring day laborers as well as illegal immigrants. The portions of the law that make it economically difficult for immigrants to survive in Arizona are mainly intact.
Don't forget also, that although the most heavy handed provisions of the law are blocked, it has not changed the local sentiments against immigrants. Immigrants will still face the same struggles. The question remains does one Judge's ruling prevent Hispanics from being targeted and harassed by local law enforcement?

The Arizona Immigration Law Debate

The new Arizona law goes into effect this week. The new law will require police officers to question people if there is reason to believe they are in the country illegally.

Currently, Civil rights groups are challenging the new law in court, arguing that it allows police to use racial profiling to go after suspected illegal immigrants. At the same time, others groups support the law as an effort to reduce the impact of illegal immigration in America. The passions on both sides are running high.

Supporters of the law point out that the federal government has been ineffective in stemming the tide of immigrants entering the country. There are an estimated 460,000 undocumented aliens residing in Arizona. The fear is that these undocumented aliens have a negative affect on American jobs and wages.

At the same time, while acknowledging that illegal immigration is an issue, civil rights groups are concerned that the tough new law is not the proper way to solve the problem. The great fear is that police officers will target hispanics solely on their race. Many worry that citizens of hispanic decent will get caught up in the wide net of racial profiling.

Supporters of the law point out that the law only codifies current practices of the Arizona police force: As a general rule, if a person is arrested for a crime, their immigration status is checked by immigration authorities and they are flagged for deportation if they are undocumented.

However, many wonder why there would be a need for the passage of a new law if it has no affect on current practices. There is also the fear that the law will act for a shield for bad cops to engage in racist practices.

In the back of the minds of many, the question remains, with the passage of this law are we one step removed from requiring Hispanics to wear a patch on their clothing to indicate whether they are lawfully in the country?