Marriage is one of the oldest institutions still recognized in our society today, and it does not seem to be losing any of its value or momentum. Marriage is simply a legal contract between two individuals; however, we have made it into so much more.

Society has created social and religious implications for the word “marriage,” and now many people are using them as tools in the fight against same-sex couples joining in on the ancient tradition.

Many people argue that marriage is a religious institution and allowing same-sex couples to marry would be entrenching upon their freedom of religion. It is true that marriage is often thought of as a religious institution; however, the Catholic Church did not even consider the act to be a sacrament until 1215 AD, previously considering it a secular practice of exchanging property. Therefore, marriage can hardly be considered exclusively religious.

E.J. Graff, author of “What is Marriage For?” and resident scholar at the Brandeis Women’s Studies Research Center, reports that marriage has been a political battleground for centuries. She says that after industrialization, when men begin to work in factories, marriage moved away from the traditional model: “In 1920 and 1930 every third magazine article is saying ‘this is the end of marriage as we know it,’ ‘this is the death of the family,’ and ‘this is the period of the collapse of traditional marriage.’ Because suddenly youngsters are behaving bizarrely; they’re dating, not on the front porch, but outside of their parents view… and they’re having sex with contraception.”

Similar arguments about the death of family values and traditional marriage are being thrust upon same-sex marriages today. People say that because homosexual couples cannot reproduce, their relationships cannot be natural and therefore they should not be allowed to wed. But that argument suggests that marriage is in some way tied to the ability to reproduce, which is untrue.

There is another popular idea floating around suggesting states should have the right to vote upon legalizing same-sex marriage. However this is not a states’ right issue. The Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1996 under the Clinton administration, defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman. The act also allows states the ability to not recognize unions from other states. This means that gay men and women are denied over 1,000 federal benefits including inheritance, immigration, social security and hospital visitation.

That means that if a man in Vermont, where gay marriage is legal, wishes to marry a man from Venezuela, they still would not be able to acquire a green card because the marriage would not be federally recognized.

Many hateful zealots, like James Dobson, love to use arguments that say same-sex marriage is just a slippery slope to “marriage between a man and his donkey.” Equating a consenting marriage between two adults does not in any way compare to the marriage between a human being and an animal or an adult and child. This type of speech illustrates a core misunderstanding of people and is blatantly ignorant hate.

Recently after U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker overturned Proposition 8 in California many conservatives accused him of legislating from the bench; however, the same could be said in Brown v. Board of Education. The judicial system has an obligation to stand up for minorities when no one else will.

Conservatives love to grandstand their love for freedoms and how evil the government is for interfering with the private lives of citizens, and now that they have the chance to actually stand up for something that is not directly related to fiscal policies, they choose to stand up for regulation of private issues.

Michael Patrick is a junior majoring in political science. His column runs bi-weekly on Thursdays.