Why the Supreme Court Decision on Gay Marriage Was Inevitable

In our union of states, reciprocity is paramount.  Each state recognizes educational degrees received in other states.  Each state recognizes and accepts the validity of marriages in other states.  So, when there are just 13 left that don't recognize gay marriage, the reciprocity of the union has to be preserved making same sex marriage universally acceptable and recognizable in all 50 states.

My concern is that, if gay marriage is now the law of the land, will any religious objection to it be voided?  Will the refusal of preforming a gay marriage by a Church be overridden by what the Supreme Court just did?  My guess is that we will have nothing but one court battle after another in which gays fight any and all objections to their marriages.  Mark my words.

Reference:

Supreme Court rules in favor of same-sex marriage nationwide: http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/26/politics/supreme-court-same-sex-marriage-ruling/

Obama's Coming Out Is Having Negative Consequences

When the President announced he was in support of gay marriage, I'm sure that the his reelection team thought they had a winner by being able shore up the the liberal base and, at the same time, garner votes from independents.  After all, the polls seem to indicate that a majority of Americans are in support of same-sex marriage.  But, in reality, he may have actually done more harm than good by fracturing that  base.   The New York Times is reporting that several Black pastor's expressed concern over the President's "coming out" on the same-sex marriage issue.  Some even saying that they would not support his reelection.  Then, too, many Catholics -- already at odds with Obama over forced contraception insurance coverage -- are probably further offended by his new stand.  This is especially true for Catholic Latinos.  In fact, gay marriage is at odds with many other religions as well. This is most likely why -- in direct contradiction to the polls -- so many states have successfully banned same-sex marriage when the issue has actually been put to a vote. 

I personally think the same-sex marriage decision was a mistake.  Obama knows this, and this is why, in 2008, when running for the presidency, he said he supported civil unions and not same-sex marriage.
(Click here to see Obama in a Panel Discussion on the topic) This 2008 position was in direct contradiction to his prior support of same-sex marriage when he ran for the U.S. Senate.  It appears that the President's evolving positions are more like a revolving door; coming back to what he actually believed all the time.  But, the crassness of changing positions to simply get votes may also turn some voters off. Especially those who voted for him in 2008 when they were under the false impression that he was against same-sex marriage.

Obama's Unnatural Selection On Gay Marriage

President Obama claims his recent decision in support of gay marriage was the result of evolution.   Well, I contend it was a subset of evolution: Natural Selection.  Or, more appropriately, unnatural selection. It was "natural" for a president who is struggling to re-energize his shrinking liberal base to make a "choice" that would shore up one of his four biggest donor and support groups: The Gay, Lesbian, and Trans-Gender population. 

However, this "selection" may not be welcomed by a near majority of Americans.  In polling, the nation is almost split on gay marriage.  Though, most don't mind civil unions or civil partnerships for legal reasons, most believe that  marriage is a term that should be reserved for a "natural" union between a man and a woman. In fact, 31 states have already passed laws banning it, and just last Tuesday, a majority of North Carolina voters shot it down once again, with Maryland having a referendum to do the same in the fall elections.  So, many may be turned off by Obama's unnatural selection in support of gay marriage and his "selection" just might be one more reason not to vote for him in November.

As I have stated before in this blog, I firmly believe that, as long as states are allowing for gay/lesbian child adoption, the child would be best served by domestic partnership or civil union protection under the law.  But, more than that, a caring America should allow gays and lesbians to be in a legally establish relationship if they want to.  It is ridiculous to believe that,  somehow, by baring such relationships, gay/lesbians relationships would be punished out of existence. However, let's leave "marriage" as it has been for thousands of years.

A Simple Argument for Gay Unions

Whether by customary or written law, almost every human culture has rules regarding marriage between heterosexual couples. Mankind has long understood the importance of monogamy and the protection of the children from that relationship. You can go to the darkest depths of the Amazon and you will find "customary" rules being enforced. Partly, these "rules" are "understood" to keep order in the community by stifling fights over spouses. But, more than anything, these rules are in effect to protect the children.

In our modern culture, the laws regarding marriage are generally designed to protect the woman with children from desertion by the husband. The assumption has always been the the burden of taking care of any offspring makes it prohibitive for a mother with children to work outside of the home. In fact, a married woman working outside of the home environment is a modern occurrence; and, many of the marriage laws existed long before this advent.

When we, as a modern society, decided to allow gay and lesbian couples to adopt children, we, by default, called into effect the laws involving marriage; whether we like it or not. It has nothing to do with religion. As I said before, the unwritten laws of marriage existed long before any formal and broad-based religions ever came to be.

It is all about the children and the potential of having children in any kind relationship; whether homosexual or heterosexual. It isn't about furthering the acceptance of gays in our society. We've gone well beyond that. Now its down to protecting a relationship so that the weaker of that relationship, the children, that are generally protected under our laws. While this is abhorrent to my personal and religious beliefs and to the many religions in the world, logic overrides that disdain. If organized religions want to protect the "word" marriage, that's fine. All marriages, heterosexual or gay, can be certified as "unions" under the law and "marriage" under religion. After all, "marriage" in religious terms is a morally binding "state" that is a relationship between a man and a woman; before God. It is only the "state" that certifies marriage by issuing a legally binding license.

All the efforts to block gay unions is simply avoiding the inevitable. It is a futile effort and we should all get over it. While the whole "gay thing" is still an emotional issue with me and most heterosexual people, I think I am finally OK, on a logical basis, with the concept of gay marriage or gay unions.