So I strongly avoid talking about the 3 "off-limit" topics (religion, politics, and money) here because I cannot validate my message will come across cleanly and clearly.  Those who know me personally know I am willing to talk about almost any subject if asked, just only in one-on-one or small group discussions so that people can reach understanding with others, not just reaffirm their pervious beliefs.  

Anyway, Jon Stewart had a clip with the statement "semantics is a cold comfort when it comes to humanity", in reference to why the definition of a word (marriage) can/should be used to prevent people in love from sharing their love in the legal and structured methods that our society promotes (and I think we do actively promote marriage). 

Oddly enough, when I got married (to my wife Kelly), I was asked to find a poem to put on our wedding program that talked about love.  There is only one poem that comes to mind for me that explains the 'truest' essence of the connection that is love.  It is the poem, Full Moon by Alvin Lau, about two women getting married.  There are only two reasons that I did not book him to come (he lives in Chicago) and present his poem at my wedding.

1. It was too long to put on the program anyway.
2. My wife's mother is a fundamentalist (bible-based) Christian, and it is supposed to be our family's day as much as our own.

The last line of the poem is "Marriage is about love, nothing else matters."  And that is what it comes down to.  The people who fought and died to create our country said in the Declaration of Independence, "We hold these truths to eb self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that amoung thease are [...] the pursuit of Happiness."  To me, I think the public and legal recognition of marriage is core to a couple's happiness and it is the responsibility of every self-described American to help every other human fight against 'semantics' interfering with their Rights.

Up until 1967 (Loving v. Virginia), states were allowed to (and did) prohibit marrage between members of different races via miscegenation laws.  In Lawrence v. Texas (a 2003 case overturning the 'Texas Homosexual Conduct Law'), the majority opinion (Kennedy, Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer) stated the following: 

"times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress."

I only hope that time will again prove that statement remains true.

Jason R. Shaver

Sidenote, for those who enjoy reading about Law topics, take some time to look at how substantive due process was applied in Lawrence V. Texas.  Substantive due process is (basically) a protection for rights and liberties not expressly defined in the constitution, such as:

• Use of contraceptives (Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965)
• Right to marry (Loving v. Virginia, 1967)
• Freedom of contract (Adkins v. Children's Hospital, 1923)

And in Lawrence v. Texas, it was used to say that private actions (such as sexual activites) being outlawed are a violation of privacy and liberty, defined in the 14th Amendment, without due process.  It also defined that homosexual behavior can be covered under the 14th Amendment's equal protection of the laws (I.E. you can ban it for everyone, or no-one, but not just homosexuals), although only O'Connor chose to make that part of her decision. 

2nd Side note, I am not a lawyer, or have any training as a laywer.  It is only an interest of mine.  If I misspoke above, please let me know.