Marriage Equality

Today the Supreme Court starts to hear arguments on a topic that has been controversial for years, but in my opinion is ridiculous that it had to go that far. Love and how you choose to express it is not something that should have to be decided on by a federal court. The sanctity of my marriage should not have to be compared to the sanctity of my straight brother’s marriage. There is no difference. We love who we love and it is a human right to be able to express that with a legally binding marriage contract the same as anyone else.

Straight couples get to marry regardless of differences in faith, race, social status, financial differences, and age with no questions asked. Why is it an issue if two men who are in love want to have the same right? It was illegal to have an interracial marriage until the supreme court struck that down in 1967 (Loving v. Virginia). Love sees no color, gender, religion, or any other factor.

The laws concerning same-sex couples have gone in our favor a lot in recent years. For instance, though we are not legally married, I have my husband on my insurance, something that (nearly) ten years ago when we got together was unheard of. But because we are not legally married, I still have to pay additional taxes to insure him. If we were legally married in the state of Ohio, there would be no extra tax. In another example, if one of us were to meet an unfortunate end, our families currently have the right to exclude the surviving person from any estate money, property, or anything else that person leaves behind. Our families wouldn’t do that to the other (we both are fully accepted into the other’s family) but we aren’t all same-sex couples. There are still couples to which that would apply.

The majority of the arguments I have heard against same-sex marriage all have to deal with religious grounds. I’m not condemning anyone for what they believe, nor will I ever, whether I agree or not. But there is a separation of church and state in this country, so I think that your religious views should not dictate the laws of everyone they affect. A lot of opponents to marriage equality are worried that a change in law would disrupt the sanctity of marriage. So does divorce, don’t you think? And that has been legal for centuries. The actual argument being heard today is whether to strike the definition of marriage from “one man and one woman” to “two persons”. By letting same-sex marriage through, it will not be opening doors to polygamy, human/animal marriage, or any of the weird off the wall things I’ve heard the opposition come up with. It just clarifies that two (and only two) people in love have the right to be legally binding to one another.

My (potential) marriage would affect no one but me and my husband. Our family and friends would be happy for us, would be a part of our lives, and would support the decision we make to be “officially” married. But at the end of the day, the marriage itself would be ours and ours alone. The only ever people it could possibly effect would be the children we may someday have.

Though it may not be decided until summer, and the actual laws may not take effect until after that, I hope the Supreme Court makes the right decision in favor of love.



  1. Carol · April 28, 2015

    I hope they make the right decision, too. Too many people have had to wait too long already.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. David · April 28, 2015

    The problem is you want to redefine marriage into something that it isn’t.


    • jasinrockgod · April 28, 2015

      Yes, the results of this case could redefine marriage. That is the point.
      Having read your blog prior to approving this comment, I’m assuming, and correct me if I’m wrong, that you are basing your definition on biblical text. I’m not stating that you should go against your beliefs, but they are not the beliefs of everyone (no offense intended).
      You state in your blog that the U.S. motto is In God We Trust, and that is a true statement, but between the time of the founding fathers and now a lot of different ideals and theologies have become more prevalent in the this country. We, as a country, cannot base our laws and ideologies on Christian values when not everyone is of that faith. While a good percentage of its citizens are Christian, it is not in good faith to subject everyone to follow its values. No more than can we force everyone to speak English, or be Caucasian.
      The Bible has several stipulations for the definition of marriage, many of which are not followed today. Polygamy, treating wives as property, and forcing a rape victim to marry her rapist to name a few.
      Changing the definition of marriage from “one man and one woman” to “two persons” is in no way intended to cause harm to anyone. It is in no way intended to disrespect any current marriages, nor should it hinder any future marriages. Just because same-sex couples may gain the right to marry does not mean all people must enter into a same-sex union. Heterosexual marriages will still outnumber homosexual ones by a very large margin.
      By denying a redefinition of marriage based on the Bible and (solely) Christian values, we would need to redefine it to include rapists and their victims, brides bought from their fathers, underage brides, and banning heterosexual couples that could not produce children.
      A homosexual marriage should in no way be treated any different than a heterosexual one. After all, we are all humans who love. Who we love should have no bearing on anyone else.


      • David · April 28, 2015

        At the same time it is not the country redefining marriage. It has been renegade judges overturning laws established by the people.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s