The U.S. Constitution states: “No State shall enter into any ….. Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts,” Marriage is, among many other things, a contract. A typical set of Wedding Vows includes: “I, (my name), take you, (the name of someone else), for my lawful wife/husband. That’s only one example of a contract between two people. So far, everyone agrees those words, that contract, binds two people together. If the two people are a man and a woman everyone accepts the contract.

Gay marriage is a contract between two people where each person is of the same sex, … kinda. If one person is like Bruce Jenner, a woman in a man’s body and the other is a woman, no one has a problem with them getting married. All of the items of a traditional marriage contract are in evidence.

But Bruce tells us he’s been a woman in a man’s body who married three different women. Were they married? Everyone answers yes. So what’s the problem with two women in women’s bodies getting married? It’s the same as when Bruce did it with the slight difference of the man’s body. But a man’s body isn’t necessarily what makes a contract. Neither sex nor gender matters for contracts. It’s the offer; the consideration; and the mutual acceptance between two adults that creates the contract.

So if two gay people enter into a contract to be married, the law must protect that contract. That doesn’t sit well with some people. They seek to prevent LGBT people from entering into a marriage contract.

Many people have taken the position that marriage was defined by God. OK, but the bible doesn’t go into the idea of contracts as the U/S. Constitution did.

Some people object to the use of the word, marriage when it comes to two same sex individuals. That’s OK too since they have no standing to interfere with someone else s contract. They can object on religious grounds. Fine. Their objection can be noted but they have no standing under the law to interfere.

Religious people can speak for themselves. If they want to define marriage a contract between a man and a woman. fine but legally they can only speak for for themselves. They have no business interfering with someone else’s contract. They lack standing to interfere.

They can argue all they want. They just can’t get what they want if they want to interfere with someone else’s contract.

If someone want’s to declare marriage is between a man and a women, what do they call Bruce Jenner’s three marriages? At the very least those marriages were legal. Bruce confuses the issue because he’s something different than a man. He’s a physical male but an intellectual woman. No problem for the contract crowd. Big problem for the ecclesiastics but they need to realize they lack standing to actually take one side or the other about the validity or invalidity of his three marriages.

But the law of the land goes further than not standing in the way of two people making contracts. The law must protect contracts, regardless of the sex or gender of the contractees.

Of course it would be simple to settle gay marriage by relying on the laws of contracts. That won’t settle the issue with the Ecclesiastics. They will just have to keep fighting until they get the contract distinction; the idea that they lack standing and the further idea that the law actually protects contracts.

Time to move on. This battle is over.