Senate majoritarianism: Am I a hypocrite?

So, I am back after my finals-induced hiatus. And I pick up not too far from where I left off: the health care bill.

Four years ago, I participated in an interesting sort of protest called the "Frist Filibuster," in which members of the Princeton community "filibustered" by reading aloud from a podium in front of the Frist Campus Center. The protest was in opposition to the proposed "nuclear option," proposed by then–Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, that would make it more difficult for Democrats to filibuster President Bush's judicial nominees. These days, I join the legions of those in favor of health care reform that day after day demonize the practice of the filibuster as anti-democratic and a danger to this country.

Did something change? Or am I just a hypocrite? Since I would rather believe the former than the latter, I'll try to give some of my reasons for changing my position, and you can tell me if they hold water.

(1) The numbers are different. In an earlier post, I described how filibustering Senate Democrats in 2005 represented approximately 50 percent of the population, whereas filibustering Senate Republicans in 2009 represent approximately 36 percent of the population. Thus, the majoritarian mandate in the Senate now is far greater than it was in 2005. While this is an interesting point, majoritarianism is majoritarianism, and I don't think this gives me much of a theoretical leg on which to stand. Something more is needed.

Same-Sex Marriage: Constitutionally Required

Of the various political issues at issue these days, I think the one that bothers me most is the opposition to same-sex marriage. Part of it is that I simply do not understand why so many people are opposed to it, and it makes me think less of my fellow Americans that they take so much joy in denying happiness to others. Perhaps I'm overreacting on this front, because I feel like same-sex marriage is only controversial among people over the age of 30, and that it will be a non-issue in a few years.

But, in addition to the moral/political aspect of it, what bothers me is that there is no constitutional justification for denying to same-sex couples the right to marry. I mean, absolutely none. Any reasonable reading of the Equal Protection jurisprudence in this country makes it clear that a ban on same-sex marriage is blatantly unconstitutional. (Note: If you think this just means that I haven't heard a good argument yet, please comment and let know).

For people who are interested, here is a primer on equal protection law, along with arguments for why same-sex marriage is constitutionally required.