The legal reasons why we should marry...maybe not what you think.

The framework that we have used to discuss the issue of same-sex marriage has been flawed, in my opinion. We have been focusing on the same issues which we accuse our oppressors for focusing on – that of sexuality. We get bogged down in exactly what others want us to get distracted by – the origin of homosexuality, the morality of same-sex relationships and sexual acts. None of this is relevant to the civil marriage contract. In truth, same-sex marriage is not about our sexuality, its origin or expression - it is about gender. Here is why:

Should you apply for a marriage license with your same-sex partner, the only reason you are not able to be granted a marriage license is due to the gender/sex of your partner. If s/he were of the opposite biological sex, the license would be granted.

Nobody frankly cares what you do sexually when you are an opposite-sexed couple. As long as you are of the opposite sex, meet other legal requirements regarding age, etc…you may marry without prohibition. If you never decide to engage in any physical sexual act, cannot procreate, etc…it is none of the state's affair. In fact, if you are an inmate who will never have the pleasure of sexual intimacy with your partner – you are still allowed to marry. The problem, is one of gender.

This brings us to this simple point. We are not asking for a "special" kind of marriage – but rather, the extension of existing rights to include couples comprised of the same-sex. For the state, they cannot deny rights to its citizens without reason, in states with ERAs (equal rights amendments), they have to prove that extending these rights would somehow harm the commonwealth. Current research shows no indication that there is any evidence to withhold rights from this group of people who would make the choice to marry someone of the same gender.

Also, remember that wanting to extend marriage to include same-sex couples does not change marriage – it remains exactly the same with the only variable of difference being the gender of your intended spouse. It offers the same rights and responsibilities, and remains a civil contract between two individuals.

People know this…even 82 year old Phyllis Schafely who has been working to defeat the Equal Rights Ammendment because she states it will allow same-sex marriage justification. She stated to Columbia News Service author Alison Schuyler Ogden in an article , Remember the ERA? It's back, thanks to a new generation, "If we can't deny any right on account of sex, we can't deny a marriage license on account of sex."

Phyllis and I would likely disagree on many things, but we certainly see eye to eye on this front.

If we want to start getting smart about how we approach same-sex marriage – we will not get bogged down in the mire of the origins, or morality. Although science continues to point toward biological explanations (we know that over 350 species have reported same-sex pairings - see Biological exhuberance), it is not really a relevant topic. People in our country should have the right to choose to marry the mate of their choice regardless of sex. Treating genders equally, means parity. Not parity in everything "except marriage."

On another note, people have the right to disagree on moral issues. Individual churches already take stands on many social issues, and continue to take a position here. Whether or not they choose to perform religious ceremonies that often accompany the legal binding is entirely within their rights.

However, the law is intended to offer rights equally to all of its citizens, even when the majority supports discriminatory practices. The rights of every citizen are not up for public vote – and with solid reasoning. Still, we may not have interracial marriage – or women's rights. As the law is written, we cannot deny that extending marriage rights to same-gendered couples is the legally correct thing to do.