The state of the "union" and the Supreme Court

This is the first significant hearing by the Supreme Court in a long time: whether to allow for "gay marriage" in the United States or not. Right? No, actually that's wrong. It is clear that our Constitution provides equality under the Fourteenth Amendment. It states that no "State" can deny a person "equal protection." The fact is that the 14th Amendment being reviewed, is not as common as many would think. It has been used in oral arguments only a few times in our history. The Civil Rights movement relied heavily on its interpretation, and most likely the reason why many think it's the cure for all "protections" under the law. It can definitely fall short.

So here we are in the United States, having President Clinton sign the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. This federal statute will create an obstacle. Another hurdle is that the Supreme Court will have to deal with the reality that 31 states have passed constitutional amendments banning same sex marriages, and another 5 have passed state laws banning the same.
What a quandary; on the one hand, ALL people need to be protected, yet on the other, there seems to be a big fight to protect the word "marriage" and its meaning.

Part I 
The Supreme Court should not deny the LGBT community equal protection under our laws. Gay couples everywhere and anywhere should be able to unite in love. This will also give the LGBT community many other rights associated with their fight, like spousal and insurance benefits. Their love can be a union, and they may unite in marriage; they can celebrate their union with a union ceremony, or through the courts or both. Allowing LGBT couples that love each other to join in union, provides the group with the protections that are part of our system, requiring that all citizens be treated equally under the law.

Part II
The word marriage has already been defined. It will then be a union.
Using simple logic like this, maybe it can be understood. When African-Americans asked for equality, after a long fight, it was granted by the Supreme Court that this group should be protected under the law, and that they be given the same rights as the white population.
       African Americans could have gone further and asked:
       "We also don't want to be called black anymore, we want to be called white."
I am sure the Supreme Court would have stopped at ruling yes to that. "White" defines what it defines, and a definition, or changing a definition, will not provide anything. People will use words at will. It is more the protection that whites had, that blacks wanted. As such, the LGBT community wants the same protection, that does not mean the courts will redefine a word already embedded with a meaning given to it by the states.

Opinion: 
The Supreme Court should do the right thing and protect the rights of the LGBT community.
If the LGBT community pushes to get marriage to include them, it may very well backfire. Since the U.S. only needs 38 states to pass a Constitutional Amendment (Amendment 28 to be exact), and already 36 States have passed marriage defining laws, it wouldn't be such a far reach to get to 38. If this were to happen, and a U.S. Constitutional Amendment is added defining the word marriage, the discussion would be over, and to overturn this amendment would take a great amount of effort and time.

Although the LGBT community will see many changes and new privileges if they are granted unions, there will also still exist restrictions. Under our laws, when a child is adopted, the court has to act as "parens patriae", this means the courts must act in the best interest of the child. If studies show that allowing for the adoption of a child by a gay couple, is not the "best" situation, then the LGBT battle will continue.

by: Marilyn Daly