Past, Present, and the Inevitable Future

New York Court of Appeals Judge Robert Smith said that because same-sex marriage was not deeply rooted in history and tradition, barring it did not violate fundamental rights and liberties. The problem with this way of thinking is that the "history and tradition" of marriage is one that is malleable and has evolved over the centuries. It used to be tradition that two people married to protect property and bloodlines. It was once tradition for the bride to offer a dowrey or for the groom's family to pay a "bride price", essentially buying the woman/girl from her family. It was a tradition once upon a time for the brother of the deceased husband to marry the widowed sister in law. It wasn't all that long ago that marriage between two races was forbidden. Arranged marriages are still tradition to this day in some cultures, and those have more to do with economics and nothing whatsoever to do with love.

Where is the static definition of the history and tradition of marriage? It is continuously evolving because society's notion of marriage changes. If marriage represents the responsibility, commitment, and the foundation for family, why are there those who wish to keep it an exlusive, heterosexual institution? Why do they feel so personally threatened? Is their own marriage so weak that it cannot withstand two people of the same sex getting hitched? The evolution of marriage is upon us and there will come a day when our children or our grandchildren reflect on the struggles of our generation and wonder, "what was all the fuss about?" while enroute to Mr.& Mr. Smith's wedding. Oh, it will be a fabulous event, no doubt.