A Rose By Any Other Name … Isn’t Marriage

Jun 28, 2013 by

Below is the editorial I wrote on the SCOTUS ruling on same-sex marriage:

Since the creation of our numbering system, 1 plus 1 has always equaled 2. And life went on.

And on for centuries. Yet over time this began to bug the number 3, which was a prime number but wanted to be an even number as well. So 3 began to yell and scream that 1 plus 1 should also equal 3.

Those who believed that 1 plus 1 equaled 2 said “no.” 1 plus 1 has always equaled 2 and always will. Just because you want to change it doesn’t make it so. But 3 and its supporters kept demanding that it could be 3 and also 2. The issue became one of the biggest debates in the country. About a dozen or so states have agreed that 3 can, in fact, be 2 and that 1 plus 1 can also equal 3. Now, the highest court in our land has basically agreed – 1 plus 1 can equal 3.

In its ruling this week, a sharply divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional. DOMA, as it is commonly called, passed with bipartisan support in Congress and was signed into law by then President Clinton in 1996. A second high court ruling relating to Proposition 8 in California effectively allows same-sex couples to get married in California.

Opponents say our country has entered the times of Sodom and Gomorrah. That no matter what some court decrees, it doesn’t change the fact that marriage, as it has been recognized for centuries before the United States even existed, is between a man and a woman. That 1 plus 1 equals 2, end of discussion. Supporters of the ruling say welcome to the 21st Century and the Age of Enlightenment. 1 plus 1 can equal 3.

Do we believe two people of the same sex have the right to enter into a legally binding contract and have all the rights afforded as to a marriage between a man and a woman?

Yes.

Do we believe that those same-sex partners have the right to buy houses together, take out loans, have authority relating to financial and health decisions for their partner and anything else afforded to heterosexual marriages?

Yes.

That doesn’t make it a marriage.

Call it what you want – a civil union, a gayrriage or whatever, it is not a marriage. That is and always has been defined as a union between a man and a woman. 1 plus 1 equals 2. It does not, and never will, equal 3, despite all the king’s horses and all the king’s men and all the court rulings in the world.

For now, supporters of same-sex whatever you want to call it are dancing in the streets and planning their big “weddings.” There is an old saying about having your cake and eating it, too. And so, painful as it is in the heterosexual world, those of the same-sex persuasion will also have to learn another word – divorce.

You have to take the bad with the good.

 

2 Comments

  1. Stacy Jennings

    Well done, sir. Well done. Missing your wit in the SAV…:o)
    Tequila Woman

Leave a Comment