If we are honest with ourselves, we can admit that we live in a society of tyranny and oppression. It might not be as blatant a case of civil rights violations as were the Jim Crow laws of the South, and it might be a more complicated issue when it comes to matters of personal faith. In the arena of public affairs, however, it is exactly the same. Either all people are equal, or none are free. It cannot be the purpose of a democratic government to legislate morality. John Stuart Mill warned us of the danger of a tyranny of the majority -- the situation wherein the bulk of a society's people have made an arbitrary moral determination and proceed to impose on those small factions that do not adhere to the same beliefs. Such tyranny was seen time and time again in all forms of government -- the Inquisition and other instances of religious persecution, the Trail of Tears and other persecutions of Native Americans, even the issue of inter-racial marriage was viewed with such a lens for the bulk of this country's history. When the government involves itself in legislating based on morality, it cannot but help imposing this sort of tyranny. Even without passing judgment directly on the race, gender, creed, or sexual orientation, legislation that limits what these groups are allowed to do carries with it an implicit message that these groups are somehow less than desirable and even less than human. Barring homosexuals from the rights and privileges of marriage is an instance of government...

Our focus should not be on legislating what other people do, but coming to accept, understand, and even respect what others do, even when we would not do the same thing, as long as it is not harming us. Surely, no one can claim that the marriage of a gay couple caused them any direct harm. As long as the participants in an act are wiling and capable of making their own choices, we must let them do as they wish. That is the right that every individual has in their private life.
Some say that it is not what is done in the privacy that bothers them, but what is done to and in public institutions like marriage. I say the two cannot be fully separated. I say all that will happen to our public institutions is they will become more equal in their considerations of private life. Some say they do not want their children exposed to homosexuality. I say their children will be exposed because we do not have the right to lock homosexuals forever in their closet. I say their exposure need not be regarded with fear and suspicion, but that they should be regarded as equals, no different than anyone else. Even these semantic division of "we" and "they" divisive and unnecessary. I say it is time for us to choose equality. It is time for us to choose justice. It is time for us to lead ourselves into a more equitable future. The time is always ripe for good works.