Our view: Defining same-sex marriage

KS Editors

The topic of same-sex marriage has given rise to many problems. The U.S. Supreme Court stated it “would not accept cases from any of five states whose same-sex marriage bans had been struck down by federal appeals courts,” according to a USA Today article from Nov. 7. Last week, a different federal appeals court ruled the ban of same-sex marriage — in Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky and Tennessee — was constitutional and would remain in force. 

This ban brings up many questions, but when will the discussion end? For many in our generation, there is not a problem with same-sex marriage. We’ve been exposed to a lot of information and emotional debate about gay marriage through TV and computer screens. We’ve grown to accept individuals regardless of his or her choice in partner. So, why does the Supreme Court not agree with us?

Now is the time for same-sex marriage to be accepted by the federal court. Now is the time for a legal definition of marriage to be established.

Older generations might be against same-sex marriage because they’re used to the religious idea of marriage between one man and one woman, but times are changing. There needs to be a definition set by our federal court of what exactly a marriage means in legal terms and not in a religious aspect. 

Whether it’s defined by a court of law or the people of the country, marriage should be a consensual and legally binding relationship no matter which sex you decide to marry.

The above editorial is the consensus opinion of the The Kent Stater editorial board.