President Obamas decision to no longer defend the so-called Defense of Marriage Act in court is the courageous and correct one. DOMA was a disaster and a huge step backwards from the instant it was signed into law. President Obamas decision gives me hope that we as a nation can address the far more significant challenges and problems we face. We can only hope that his decision spells the beginning of the end of DOMA, and that it is a signpost of the continuing progress we as a nation have made in tolerating, and indeed, celebrating those people who are different from us in whatever form. For me the question of same-sex marriage boils down to this: Love is hard enough to find. If two men or two women find love together, and want to publicly declare and celebrate it, who are we to tell them they cannot? If anyone can think of a dumber reason to discriminate against someone, please let me know. Just as I would not want anyone else to have a veto power over who I might choose to marry, I do not, and should not, have veto power over who someone else might choose to marry. Nor should the government. That said, if a particular religious denomination chooses not to perform same-sex marriages, that may be their right. The government, however, has no such discretion, and should not. The idea that the government should act as custos mores (The Guardian of Morals) is long past. As Justice Kennedy wrote in Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996) We must conclude that Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This Colorado cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws. Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996) (emphasis added). The arguments against same-sex marriage are ludicrous. Distilled to their essence, they all reduce to the idea that marriage has traditionally been between a man and a woman, and so it should stay that way. If marriage were on the same legal level as joining a social club, and no state action were involved, that would be fine. But the instant the government becomes involved, our government is required to treat everyone equally. Allowing only certain groups to avail themselves of the legal benefits and protections of marriage violates the principle of equal protection of the law, and there is simply no rational or compelling state interest to do so that could justify such a separation. The argument that But weve always done it that way simply does not, and cannot, justify prohibiting same-sex marriage. It is no more than the tired refrain of the intellectually bankrupt who reflexively oppose any change that does not directly benefit them. And so President Obama should be celebrated for taking a step to promote the equality of all in the United States. With his decision and announcement, we are one step closer to the ideal of judging a person not by what they look like, or whom they associate with, but by the content of their character and by the actions they take.