So here’s the deal. Back in the days of the caveman, I’m going to take a wild guess that there were not a whole lot of social values and mores in place that prevented same sex physical union. Those poor neanderthals (excuse the pun) didn’t have the advantage of Fox News or the Westboro Baptist Church to tell them that fooling around with a person of the same gender was “perverted”.
Enter today’s neanderthals…well spoken men and women, some carrying legal briefs in their thick leather cases, telling us poor folks that this SCOTUS argument today really isn’t about discrimination, it’s about the rights of individual states to decide if they want to allow same-sex marriages. They argue that if the judicial branch rules for same-sex marriage, it would be a blanket imposition of a social agenda on all 50 states…rather than letting the individual states decide for themselves. A very attractive argument in my opinion. Except it’s flawed.
Flawed in this sense: marriage, despite all their attempts to moralize it, is at its core, a legal contract. Currently, we do not allow members of the same sex to enter into this legal contract. By any definition, this is discrimination based on sexual preference. End of story.
Spare me the emotional religious arguments that marriage is a sacrosanct union between a man and a woman. It is not. If it was, you would not need to obtain a government “license” to enter into it. It is, again, simply a legal contract. To continue to deny a segment of our population access to this contract and all the benefits and responsibilities it engenders, is no different than telling them they need to sit at the back of the bus…or to drink from another drinking fountain.