Now the nation’s highest court has heard the arguments. It’s now time for justices to weigh the pros and cons of same-sex marriage and to rule on its merits. Their decision will be complete with all the legal language and complexity associated with legal opinion. The decision, expected by late June, will be complete with all the legal language and complexity associated with legal opinion.
But it’s not so difficult to understand that people should be able to acquire all the legal rights and protections that benefit married couples. It should not matter whether it’s a sexual relationship between a man and a woman, a relationship between two people of the same-sex, or just simply two friends who desire to spend a non-sexual life together. It should not matter if we label it a marriage or a civil union.
After all, marriage is a legal social contract. It’s a legally binding exchange of promises between people that the law will enforce. It establishes their rights and obligations. And, as with any contract, a contractual agreement can be made between anyone as long as there is an offer made and accepted, it’s not coerced, there is consideration, and the people involved of are sound mind. Contracts can be made between people of different sex or of the same sex. Except for the sexual aspect, marriage meets all of these conditions. So it’s inexplicable why we legally will not allow same-sex marriages.
Today, marriage is an antiquated concept. At the time when marriage came into play, societies needed to establish an environment conducive to safeguarding and perpetuating lineage. In fact, a law today that would protect ethnic identity, social hierarchy, and inheritance would evoke similar arguments of constitutionality. Unlike today, it was a time when love was nothing more than an abstract notion.
It was a time when society believed women were born to be subservient to men. A woman was merely property, who had no property rights. It dictated that men reign supreme, that a wife should serve her husband’s desires and domestic needs, and look to her husband for permission and guidance in all things.
There may be a “Nature’s Case for Same-Sex Marriage,” but unlike natures kingdom of hermaphroditic species humans are not hermaphroditic. For the human species to evolve there must be intercourse between a man and woman. If that did not occur, the human species would soon not exist.
But this should not be central to the argument. As expressed by Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly, “The compelling argument is on the side of homosexuals. That’s where the compelling argument is. We’re Americans. We just want to be treated like everybody else. That is a compelling argument and to deny that, you’ve got to have a very strong argument on the other side. And the other side hasn’t been able to do anything but thump the Bible.”
Today, the U.S. Supreme Court and society should heed the words of Thomas Jefferson who said, “… laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.”
An American should not accept decisions that will keep America in the dark ages. That’s what our legal system and our government tends to do. Whether its guns or marriage, we want to maintain the status quo rather than move forward and adjust to the realities of today.