The Supreme Court today (Tuesday, March 26, 2013) heard oral arguments in the case of California’s proposition 8, passed by voters in 2008, that outlawed same sex marriage in the state.
Lawsuits immediately followed the passage of the proposition, and those lawsuits now wind up in the Supreme Court. The court is being asked to decide if the law in California, though approved by a majority of voters, is unconstitutional. How the court will decide is anyone’s guess.
I have spoken here on prior occasions in support of the traditional definition of marriage, which is to say between one man and one woman. But guys like me need to recognize that our traditional concept of marriage has become somewhat anachronistic. Guys my age grew up in a time when the majority of marriages lasted a lifetime. That is no longer the case.
The real issue is, that truth be told, marriage today is at its core a financial arrangement and for most people a temporary one. On that score I say you shouldn’t need to be married in order to keep the government’s hands off your money and property in the first place.
When I closely examine my opposition to gay marriage, I find that what I am really opposing is the breakdown in heterosexual marriage – and most particularly the impact of that breakdown on children.
No court, not even the Supreme Court, can address that problem.