When the signers of the U.S. Constitution ratified this document in 1787, they embarked on an experiment with revolutionary ideas; that the people of a nation were free and that the rule of law, rather than the rule of tyranny, would dominate our great nation.

Two hundred twenty-three years later, the Constitution has once again delivered on its promise of "a more perfect union," In this case, the perfect union is same-sex marriage -- the recognition by a federal judge that the so-called "Defense of Marriage Act" (DOMA) is unconstitutional.

DOMA was signed into law in 1996 and prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages, even those performed in states where such marriage is legal. It is ironic that many of the supporters of this discriminatory law are the same ones who trumpet "states' rights" at Tea Party gatherings, Palin lovefests and whatever else these folks do. It will be interesting to see how that crowd will react to a federal judge reaffirming states' rights for a cause they oppose. Perhaps their hypocrisy will be unmasked once and for all. Sharron Angle, is God talking to you now in the Nevada desert?

In the United States of America, in 2010, in the eyes of the federal government, it is illegal for two people of the same gender to express their love through marriage. The tide, however, is turning, as one by one, states have begun to legally recognize same-sex relationships. In five states, the District of Columbia and one Indian tribe, same-sex marriages are performed and legal. Four additional states recognize same-sex marriages from other states and in 12 states, same-sex relationships are recognized through civil unions or domestic partnerships.

When African-Americans and whites wanted to marry each other back in the 1950s, most states forbade the practice. America was segregated by race back then, and most Americans were against interracial marriage. Fortunately today, after a famous court case in 1967, Loving v. Virginia, by an enlightened and unanimous Supreme Court, the right to interracial marriage is the law of the land. The parallels are frighteningly similar.

About 10 years ago, the majority of Americans opposed same-sex marriage. Those numbers are narrowing, with a majority of Americans now supporting marriage equality. Time is on our side as the new generation of Americans, those under 30, overwhelmingly support marriage equality for LGBT Americans.

As in any great civil rights movement, there are setbacks. Last week, Linda Lingle, the Republican governor of Hawaii, vetoed a law that would provide same-sex couples the right to form a "civil union." Even though this law had been approved by wide margins in the Hawaii Legislature, the governor caved in to the right-wing elements in her state and vetoed the law. A possible override of the veto is just a few votes short of occurring. Harry and I won't be attending any luaus soon, I assure you.

This leads me to an important point. Why do people or legislatures or governors get to "vote" on who a person can love or with whom a person can enter into a lifelong committed contract also known as marriage? In a nation of free people, this conversation seems contradictory to our founding principles and constitutional protections. Just like the Supreme Court outlawed slavery, and overruled segregation, it must, too, overrule these attempts by the majority to oppress a minority. In California, where over 13,000 same-sex couples have married, the people narrowly, by just a few percentage points, overturned same-sex marriage. This is now in the federal courts and a decision is imminent. Let's hope the federal judge in California gets it right, just like the federal judge in Boston did by overturning DOMA.

How would these same folks react if an amendment passed that made interracial or interfaith marriage illegal? Or a referendum approved that only recognized one religion over another? Or a law passed to prohibit free speech? These fundamental constitutional protections are not up for debate, nor should the right of people to love the person they love be subject to such an arbitrary plebiscite.

What is the big deal? Why do gay people need to get married? Why can't they just lay low and live together? The reasons are many, but the premise is simple. Marriage is a contract that affords couples thousands of legal rights. In a free country, every consenting adult couple, male or female, same-sex or opposite sex, interracial or monoracial, Christian, Jewish, Muslim or nonbeliever should -- and must -- have the same rights and opportunities to enter into this contract. Human decency dictates this, our national ethos of equality provides the moral authority for this to happen, and the Constitution of the United States demands it!

Rudy Molinet is a real estate broker, co-owner of Marquis Properties Realty in Key West and a community and human rights activist. He resides in Old Town Key West with Harry Hoehn, his spouse of 17 years. Contact him at rudy@rudymolinet.com.