This March the Supreme Court will make decisions in two landmark cases: United States v. Windsor and Hollingsworth v. Perry, better known at the DOMA and Prop 8 cases respectively. By the end of June the country will have a decision, for the time being, over whether same-sex marriage will be legal/recognized on a federal level, as well as the legality of Prop 8 in California. If I had to guess I would say Prop 8 will be overturned (as it has been in the two lower courts it has passed through), and the Defense of Marriage Act, if overturned at all, will only be because the marriage decision should be left to the states not the federal government. Though I hope same-sex marriage is legalized in both cases, I know that is unlikely-- the country is not ready.

When I decide which side of any issue I choose to take, I try to stay away from the extremes. I think anyone who is any extremist on any issue is neglecting to see the whole picture, and the same goes for same-sex marriage. On one side of the issue you have the people who do not believe any marriage not composed of one man and one woman should legal. It is immoral, unnatural, against the bible, not intended by the founders when writing the constitution, and by legalizing gay marriage the government would be enforcing a practice that is against some people's religious beliefs therefore violating the freedom of religion clause in the first amendment. Based on these views 31 states have amended their constitutions to prohibit same-sex marriage. On the other side of the argument, same-sex marriage is about equality, and seeing as America was founded on the idea that "all men are created equal" every establishment that can provide a legal marriage should provide those services to the LGBT community. Plus there is the whole issue of people in civil unions not receiving the same benefits as a marriage does, which is why civil unions are not good enough, however that is another argument I do not want to get into.

But like I said I'm not an extremist, and I do not take either of these sides. YES same-sex marriage should be legal, but NO every institution should not have to provide that service for them (meaning churches can keep their own beliefs and they will not be infringed upon by the government in any way shape or form.)

However, though I do not believe in the liberal extreme, I also do not respect the conservative one either (and I have tried to understand it, trust me). Once we take out the issue of churches having to provide same-sex ceremonies, we take away the issue of the government imposing on the 1st amendment for those who are religious. Though some will say that just the fact same-sex marriage is legal is imposing on freedom of religion and goes against the definition of marriage, that is just wrong. Same-sex marriage is not ruining the holy idea of marriage, because marriage is not a strictly a religious idea. Though the bible may define marriage, it did not invent it, and it is not the only means by which a person gets married. As long as a person can get married by a judge, captain of a ship, or a friend that gets ordained online in 20 minutes, a person can enter a completely legal marriage union WITHOUT the church being involved. So once again, same-sex marriage does not infringe on a persons freedom of religion. However, by not allowing same-sex marriage because of the way marriage is defined in the bible does infringe on the freedom of religion of those couples not allowed to marry because of that definition. Believe it or not, freedom of religion is a two way street, and not everyone in the country a) practices religion or b) interprets the bible in the same way. Therefore not all people see same-sex marriage as immoral and unnatural, and should not be restricted for having beliefs varying from the church. Separation of church and state greatly applies here.

Now that the religion argument is taken care of, it's time to address the constitution one. It is true same-sex marriage is not addressed in the constitution, but then again neither is heterosexual marriage. It is also probably true that when the constitution was written the framers were not writing it intending for same-sex marriage, therefore the 1st amendment (freedom of religion), 9th amendment (just because a freedom is not in the constitution does not mean it does not exist), and 14th amendment (all persons have equal protection of all rights), all do not actually apply to same-sex marriage. However originality is only one method of interpretations, and in my opinion it is missing the original point of the way the constitution is written. In fact, Thomas Jefferson was quoted saying that the reason the constitution was written so ambiguously in the first place is because "...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." So now it can be said that even though the 1st, 9th, and 14th amendments were not written to legalize same-sex marriage, that does not mean they do not apply to the issue now. Because minds have changed, in the 2011 Gallop Poll, for the first time a majority of Americans (53%) believe in legalizing same-sex marriage. And after this last election where same-sex marriage won in every state it was on the ballot, it is legal, or will soon be, in nine states – Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, Washington – and the District of Columbia. This country is well on it's way for legalizing same-sex marriage on a national level. But it's still not there yet.

Clearly I am a fan of banning both Prop 8 and DOMA, but like I said, I do not believe marriage will be legalized on a federal level... at least not this spring. Don't get me wrong, I would be ecstatic if it was, but there is the problem of enforcing the new law, and 31 states already made clear they do not want to do that, and the SCOTUS does not have the power to make them. The only people who could enforce a law federally legalizing same-sex marriage is the state governments, or the federal legislative branch, which currently does not have enough people believing in same-sex marriage to legalize it (though looking at the declining popularity of the republican party, which most believe is because of their far too conservative outlook on many social issues, that may change). I believe the only way same-sex marriage can be enforced on a federal level is through the power of an amendment. Just like ending slavery, giving all races equal protection under the law, giving women the right to vote, and now same-sex marriage. To truly make a difference in important civil rights issues such as this, an amendment will ultimately need to be passed to have the proper force.

But lets say the SCOTUS does legalize same-sex marriage on a federal level, what argument will ultimately make those against it believe it is the right choice? Maybe the religious argument just offended you so you didn't buy it, or you are an originalist through and through so the constitution argument does not matter. So I will leave all the anti's with this last thought-- IT'S NOT YOUR BUSINESS! This is one thing I never got about the republican/conservative branch. They all push for smaller government, less regulations, but when it comes to social issues they do not agree with, the more government involvement the better. It is suddenly essential to have multiple acts on the state and federal level banning practice that may be against the conservative belief. But what an issue like marriage really comes down to is privacy. The ability to get married is ultimately a decision between TWO individuals-- not the government and definitely not the church. At the end of the day, it is two people are choosing to be happy together, how does it affect anyone else? The answer is, it doesn't. Not in any way shape or form does another's marriage affect anyone beside the two people in the marriage... not matter how bitter someone outside wants to be about said union. It is simply not their business. So just like with interracial marriage in Loving v. Virginia, abortion in Roe v. Wade, personal relations in Lawrence v. Texas, or prescription choices in Griswold v. Connecticut, same-sex marriage should be legal. Not because of equality, or benefits, (though those are very important too), but simply because it is not anyone's right, including the government's, to tell those two people no.