The summer of '08

In 1908, in 1958 and even as recently as 1978, some could argue that women did not have the same rights as men because they did not have the same kind of jobs, they did not win the bread for the house, they did not have the same responsibility.

But that has largely changed.

At one time, marriage was defined as between a man and a woman because the man took the woman to be his wife. There was a dowry involved and the woman always took his name. Fast forward to today and our society had transmogrified that definition. Is it for the best? It is not for us to say, but it is the reality of 2008.

The definition of marriage has shifted. It is not what it once was. Now, there are hundreds, if not thousands of same-sex couples looking for the same rights or benefits that traditional couples often seek.

The ideals of betrothal are not the same. Never will be.

Depending on your religious belief system, same-sex marriage is either OK or not. There is little one can say to sway your beliefs. And that is not our role. But the fact of the matter is that the definition of marriage is shifting and it was rooted in the feminist movement 30 (or more) years ago. Women are not mere homemakers, they are not beholden to the men to whom they committed.

So how does that translate to the current movement toward same-sex marriage?

Marriage is no longer a religious tenet. It is performed at city halls and county centers around the nation. In California, beginning this week, it was allowed at county clerks’ offices, though some decided not to participate. Marriage is a sanctimonious event filled with tradition, but it is also a legal contract — one that can be provided through a clerk.

Those who purport the values of same-sex marriage are not asking those who attend church regardless of denomination to change their beliefs. They are not asking for a re-examination of birth control or abortion, they are not even asking for churches to allow same-sex marriages in their sanctuaries. Those who value and who are in support of same-sex marriage are not asking for religious freedom, they are simply asking for legal rights.

And those legal rights will not affect anyone else. The majority of people who took part in yesterday’s first day of same-sex marriage rites have spent significant time together as committed couples.

They have children, they have homes, they work, do dishes, change diapers, take out their garbage and otherwise live normal lives.

Come November, we will face another decision regarding our state Constitution and same-sex marriage. Regardless what the state’s populace decides come election time, we guarantee the lives of those contemplating their new rights will largely be unaffected. They will live their lives by their own design as planned.

We guarantee 100, 50 and 30 years from now — we will all look back and contemplate why this was such a big deal. Some may argue it is not as important as the women’s suffrage movement or the civil rights movement. And they may have a small point.

But we will look back at this time in which many first tasted freedom and enjoyed the rights so many others take for granted. We will look back and think this was a line of demarcation for many deserving and appreciative of equality. We will look back and and contemplate the high water mark of the summer of ’08 and all who were beneficiaries.