I debated about whether to tag this article as religion or politics because it is clearly a case where religious organizations are now flexing their perceived power in an effort to influence our national government. They want to institute laws via the Supreme Court that force everyone in the nation to conform to their particular beliefs. For me that is contrary to the principles that this nation was founded upon. In fact I consider it one perilous step toward the U.S. becoming a theocracy.
Even though they may indeed represent the majority opinion in America if this religious faction succeeds they will in effect wipe out the opinions of the minority and one of the guiding principles of living in the United States has been that even minorities have a voice and the freedom to do as they please as long as it does not affect others physically or spiritually.
In effect they are campaigning over a simple definition of the word marriage. Lets suppose for a moment that we regard marriage as what it actually is. It is nothing more than a binding contract between two individuals with the addition of a perceived spiritual blessing and sanction.
True the accepted definition has traditionally considered it as a union between a male and a female and that tradition stems from the Biblical definition of marriage. However that being said not everyone in this nation accepts the Holy Bible as their sole authority on social mores.
Many couples never officially marry but after a prescribed term of cohabitation many states consider them legally married under the terms of common law marriage. Others never seek spiritual recognition of their vows to each other and are joined in a simple civil ceremony with no religious overtones of any sort.
So this discussion really boils down to asking the SCOTUS to rule on the actual definition of the word marriage. That is to me the height of ridiculousness and a complete waste of time on the part of the Supreme Court. I would suggest that a much simpler solution would be to grant all of those who wish to engage in same sex unions the right to do so using the same kind of secular ceremony that is conducted in civil unions. Problem solved.
The religious factions would be able to keep their precious word "marriage" to themselves and define it however they please within the confines of their own particular group and the same sex partners would still be able to claim all of the same legal rights as those married in the church but with out the ritualistic blessing of a specific God as defined by the particular individual religious groups. I am surprised that they are not asking the courts to rule on whose God is the only God. LOL
I truly wonder sometimes about the human species. we can become downright idiotic over some of the most insignificant issues imaginable. Considering all of the problems that we face in our world today this argument over what constitutes a marriage is about as relative as what color represents virginity. It is what you call it and nothing more.
How stupid do we have to be to ask the highest court in our nation to rule on what people are allowed to believe? That is bordering on a inquisitional dictatorship such as was prevalent during the Spanish Inquisition where anyone who acknowledged believing in anything other than what the church told them to believe was guilty of heresy and potentially executed. In many ways that is what exists in many of the Islamic Middle Eastern countries today. Christians are routinely persecuted and even executed for simply being Christian and not Muslim.
So if our courts allow this effort to succeed I would consider that a very dangerous step to becoming just as radical and extreme as the extremist Islamic regimes. For some reason we seem to eventually become that which we so strongly oppose. For years we opposed Communism and Socialism yet we are moving ever closer to both of those political ideologies within our own governmental system today. That is rather ironic when you consider that many of our ideological opposites are similarly moving toward a capitalistic consumerist type of government. Seems what goes around comes around. LOL