Same sex marriage and the Supreme Court -- should there be a try for compromise?

Ordinarily, I like to think of myself as being one of the first to seek compromise.  Whether the situation is one of business or one of politics, both sides should be able to look at the outcome with some amount of victorious feelings.  However, the two recent cases regarding same-sex marriage that have been argued in front of the Supreme Court of the United States--casually referred to as SCOTUS--cause me to wonder if compromise is possible or even desirable for this issue.

Frankly, I can't think of any way to compromise on this.  Maybe somebody else can, but I have nothing to offer.

In the absence of any creative and agreeable compromise -- SCOTUS, do the right thing by saying that everybody is equal under the law, and then let's move on.

To save you the trouble of wondering and asking:  yes, I have friends who have a personal stake in this.  In speaking with some of them, I have gained an appreciation for what this means to them as individuals.  It's real, it's significant, and it's important.

Here's the result of such a SCOTUS decision:  first, a minority grouping of persons who are currently denied elements of happiness and equality of legal protection would be provided with the same opportunities for happiness, and the same equality under the law, as now is enjoyed by the majority; second, nobody is harmed (nothing is denied to anybody else); and, finally, we then clear the decks and use our considerable energies in resolving at least some of the many other issues in front of us.

If you want some icing on the cake, then here's a business-like reason for doing this:  such a decision will simplify things for businesses which would otherwise have to cope with conflicting state laws regarding same-sex marriage when their business is conducted across state lines.  Additionally, we will avoid potential pitfalls that might arise when attempting to do business with some organization based in another country that has already legalized same-sex marriage.  Business naturally drifts along the path of least resistance.  For most of us, these business aspects are not compelling, and certainly they do not occupy the same moral and ethical high ground as do the concepts of individual pursuit of happiness and equality of legal treatment, but they could be of value for some.

Anything that goes before SCOTUS is both political and legal.  If for no other reason, each case is political because each Supreme Court justice is a political appointee, and so each justice will view cases through the lens of his or her experiences, backgrounds and beliefs that caused the appointment.  Each case is legal, too, because judgment is expected to be rendered within the context of the U.S. Constitution, often called the "supreme law of the land," and therefore a judgment will have lasting legal impact.

Last week, SCOTUS heard arguments in two separate cases about same-sex marriage:  the Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), and California's Proposition 8.   DOMA, as it stands now, denies the legality of same-sex marriages within the context of Federal law, even when those marriages might already be legal under state law.  Proposition 8 amended the California state constitution to legally define marriage as only being possible between a man and a woman within the State of California.

More than one justice made comments indicating that they felt like tip-toeing around the political, social and legal complexities and implications of these cases.  Perhaps, so the musing went, this is "too soon" to consider and judge this issue.

If they really believe so, then shame on them.  Shame for not knowing history, shame for not paying attention to what is going on around them, and shame for wasting everybody's time.

Politically, SCOTUS has plenty of cover, as public opinion polls are consistently showing a majority of Americans are now in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage.  The U.S. Constitution, as well as prior SCOTUS decisions that have collectively driven a stake through acts of discrimination against minorities in this country, provides ample legal support for the decisive decision that I am advocating here.

If you doubt my grasp of the Constitution, and perhaps also my assertion regarding SCOTUS precedents, then simply consider a couple of things. 

First, the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution says, in part, "No state shall. . .deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."  That's a pretty clear, clean and pertinent statement.  If there's a good argument that would conclude such a statement to be supportive of discrimination in application of the law, I've not heard it.

Second, right up until a SCOTUS decision in 1967, states were making laws saying that interracial marriage was illegal.  That decision made clear the legal fact that state laws regarding marriage must bend to the will and the nature of the national Constitution.

Had it not been for that 1967 decision, my first marriage would have been illegal in several states.  Thankfully, the Supreme Court at that time had a firm grasp on Constitutional realities, and on the ultimate societal deterioration that is the consequence of discrimination against minorities.  I married inter-racially--with the comfort of knowing that there would be no legal shadow on the marriage's validity anywhere in the country--and millions of others have likewise done so.  I believe that each such marriage has made its own unique contributions to our society, and we are a better nation for it.

Today's Supreme Court should deliberate and decide with the same wisdom as did its predecessor of half a century ago.  America will not revert to discrimination against minorities by selectively applying the protections of its laws to some groups of people and not to others.  Affirming that principle was the right thing to do in the past, and it's the right thing to do now.