The three branches of government rely on each other for progress to pursue. Out of the three branches of government the Supreme Court gets the least amount of attention. The founding fathers had intended for it to be this way. Alexander Hamilton describes the role of the courts in Federalist paper No. 78. That is why federal judges are appointed, and in most cases never have to run an actual campaign. For the most part, this is a good thing. Because judges do not have to run campaigns, they are essentially free of the politics associated. On some occasions the supreme court of the United States (SCOTUS) receives just as much attention as the other two branches of government, and this was one of those weeks. This week SCOTUS ruled that all states are required to recognize same sex marriage. The LGBT community is ecstatic. This excitement can be observed by simply changing the tv station to the nearest news channel, or by scanning the news feed of your favorite social networking website. Everybody is talking about the Supreme Court.

As someone who often has an opinion, I definitely have an opinion of the latest SCOTUS decision-Obergefell v. Hodges. I remember listening to the oral arguments just a few months ago; I’ve kept my opinion to myself-mostly because it does not directly affect my life-and until now felt no real reason for me talk about it. The outcome of this case is something that I have always felt should have always been. The reason I have chosen to brake my silence is because this Sunday, while I was at church, my Priest read a note from the Bishop and even interjected his own opinion on the case. I listened to the message and I could not help but think “Is the latest SCOTUS decision something we need to talk about now?” I am always open to have a conversation, but I believe worship and politics are conversations that need not mix, especially at the same time. I work for the Catholic Church, and I love my church just as much as I love my country. The gospel and the words of Jesus Christ have taught me that Jesus was a fantastic leader- a role model ready and willing to lead by being an example and providing his truth but leaving others to make their own choices; nonetheless, Loving everybody all the same. After reading the message from the bishop, Father continued to let everyone know that we must “hate the sin, but love the sinner” also interjecting his opinion that this is an attack on Christians. Moments later the church erupted in applause, as if we are the arbitrators of right and wrong.

It is of my opinion that same sex couples should have the right to marry, and the idea that this has any effect on the church is near horse hockey. A citizen of the land of the free should be able to do nearly anything they want, including marrying any person of their choice-it is a free country, is it not? When the church goes about the marriage procedure there are obviously rules that must be followed. For example, I would never expect a Catholic Church to marry a Jewish couple, or a Jewish Temple to marry a Buddhist couple. The faiths have different parameters and therefore certain procedure must be followed. Ultimately, I believe that it should be up to the church- of any faith- to decide what the rules are for marrying in their church, but it is not their place to decide who gets married in the first place. A place of worship has the right not to marry a same sex couple, just as a place of worship should have the same right to choose to not marry a couple whose faith does not a line with the faith of that place of worship.

Up until now, states had the right to choose if they will recognize same sex marriage. A multitude of court cases throughout the states have been conceived because of the erroneous amount of questions that follow from such a stance. And many states have been on the verge of changing their laws. For example, in January of 2015 a US district court ruled the Florida constitutions’ same sex marriage bans to be unconstitutional. This ruling by the court forced a temporary injunction on the state of Florida’s same sex marriage bans. Florida soon legalized same sex marriage. This week the Supreme Court of the United States has laid down the gavel, and hopefully answered many unanswered questions. The 5-4 decision has ruled that Marriage is a right protected under the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment which reads “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” This clause has been used, more than once, to break apart discrimination and establish ground breaking moments in history. Some of these historic moments include the famous Brown v. Board of Education-a ruling that protected minority students, while at school, from segregation based solely on their race.

I think that many would be surprised to learn that there are many individuals associated with the church that feel the same way I do when it comes to the issue of same-sex marriage. Many are just too scared to express their position within the walls of the church. No one wants to risk the negative social discourse that may arise when discussing such controversial positions. In conversation after mass on Sunday night, I was told that it is not that the church’s teachings, necessarily, that turns some off of the results of this same sex marriage case, but it is the disregard for states’ rights. My response is simple, yet a difficult one to grasp completely. The civil and human rights of a minority should never be left to the vote of the majority. If this was the case the minority group would almost always lose. It should not be difficult to think about what the USA would be like without court cases such as Brown v. Board of Education or Loving v. Virginia (the 1967 case that declared interracial marriage legal throughout the United States). If basic human rights were left to the will of the majorities that controlled a state government than there would be no need for the Bill Rights-which was designed to protect from the government infringing on a free peoples fundamental rights.

It is undeniable that marriage is an institution that has evolved throughout its inception. In Justice Kennedy’s opinion for Obergefell v. Hodges he eloquently describes how marriage has been a fundamental necessity for human life since human life began. He explains:

From their beginning to their most recent page, the annals of human history reveal the transcendent importance of marriage. The lifelong union of man and a women always has promised nobility and dignity to all persons, without regard to their station in life. Marriage is sacred to those who live by their religions and offers unique fulfillment to those who find meaning in the secular realm. Its dynamic allows two people to find a life that could not be found alone, for a marriage becomes greater than just the two persons. Rising from the most basic human needs, marriage is essential to our most profound hopes and aspirations.

Next Justice Kennedy describes that “the history of marriage is one of continuity and change.”, and how “that institution-even confined to opposite sex relations-has evolved over time.” He then references a time when marriages were arranged based on political or social arrangements of parents, but reassured that by our nation’s founding marriage was understood to be a voluntary contract between a man and a women. He also referenced how in recent years, the role of women in society has even changed how the modern family functions. Therefore adding another complex dynamic to how a marriage functions. None of these evolutions damaged the institution of marriage, but strengthened it.

It is mostly inevitable that the institution of marriage will change, and new questions will arise. People with new and interesting perspectives will always voice their thoughts and force us to challenge our own personal perspectives on what we validate as normal. But this does not validate a majority of individuals to establish laws that prevent a group of free people from practicing, what most consider, a basic human right. The different religions in this country will survive these changes, and the church will persevere if it sticks to its guns and follows through with its defined set of principles. Finally, when it comes to same-sex marriage, we should recognize the institution of marriage for its nobility and its reflection of a couples love for each other; while still understanding that same sex couples wish to honor the institution of marriage, and to be a part of its tenacious history.