I am torn, at least partially, on today’s ruling(s) from the SCOTUS as they relate to the same-sex “marriage” debate. I am torn in the sense that, while I do agree that the Defense Of Marriage Act is un-constitutional, I don’t necessarily agree with the reason it was struck down (I’ll get to that later). Furthermore, I am also partially torn in the sense that I am a big proponent of clearly-defined terms not being re-defined and given new meanings simply for the sake of changes in the willingness of society to accept change.

I am more libertarian (not liberal) minded on most social issues and have no problems with people who are of the opposite sex and want to make a lifetime commitment to each-other. But I draw the line at changing the meaning of things just because you want inclusion in something that another group has.

The simple truth about marriage, something that many proponents of same-sex “marriage” refuse to understand, is that marriage is and has always been an institution that is between a man and a woman. While it is true that over the past few centuries the reasons that couples enter into marriage arraignments with each other may have changed, starting off as primarily financial arraignments centuries ago to now being about love, commitment & family; what has not changed is the people involved, a husband & a wife — or more specifically one man & one women.

Changing the definition of marriage is like changing the definition of water, it just can’t be done. Just as water is the combination of two hydrogen molecules & one oxygen molecule, marriage is the combination of one man and one woman. Furthermore the argument that “people should be allowed to marry whomever they please,” is simply not a valid excuse for redefining what marriage has traditionally been. If same-sex “marriage” is recognized, why not polygamous “marriage?,” or multiple participant “marriage?”

Many of the supporters of same-sex “marriage” (particularly those coming from a liberal / progressive viewpoint) would state that those are straw man arguments the fact is that redefining the definition of marriage to include government recognition same-sex couples as “married” based on the “people should be allowed to choose” argument, doesn’t just redefine marriage but completely undefines it.

That being said, I do believe that same-sex couples who choose to make a lifetime commitment to each other should have some of the protections afforded to married individuals, such as; financial rights, benefits, inheritance, health decisions… I just don’t believe that the institution of marriage should be trampled on to do so.

The other reason I am torn with today’s decision is that I find it truly saddening that the SCOTUS should have even been deciding on a case that involves the issue of marriage. Not only is marriage an issue that the Federal Government has no business being involved in, it shouldn’t even be an issue that government has any say in.

Marriage and people’s desires to make a lifetime commitment to each-other are private matters between those two individuals or those two-individuals and their faith/church or their interpretation of God.

As a small-government loving Conservative, I want the the government out of my life. If you need the government’s recognition of your union for it to be valid in your heart & mind, are you truly living in a free country?