Court is in session. On Monday, the Supreme Court took to session for the tenth time under Chief Justice John G. Roberts. Hopefully this session, justice will be served in the form of marriage equality.

Sunday newspapers were buzzing with the prospect of gay marriage being put on the docket. That buzz had a little extra juice, though, as this court has been rather conservative, save for the ruling upholding Obamacare. In the only institution erected to be free of partisanship, however, it may be hard to leave partisanship behind in deciding whether or not the Constitution protects the marriage of same-sex couples, especially as 2016 looms.

Gay marriage should be allowed in the United States and be protected under the Constitution. Let me lean a little bit on my homeboy and fellow Virginian Thomas Jefferson: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Self-evident that all men are created equal, so then ought they marry equally? Then, too, each and every person should be allowed to execute his or her own pursuit of happiness, so long as that pursuit is not so detrimental to society.

This is another common-sense human rights issue, as is equal pay for men and women. Members of the LGBT community have not declared war on the common good or the “American way.” They should not be referenced akin to Ebola or ISIS.

Let us look at the remarks of 2016 Republican presidential prospect Ben Carson.

In an interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity, Carson said, “Marriage is between a man and a woman. No group, be they gays, be they NAMBLA, be they people who believe in bestiality, it doesn’t matter what they are. They don’t get to change the definition.”

For those of you who don’t know, NAMBLA is the North American Man/Boy Love Association, and yes, bestiality in terms of man and animal …

Then, in March, at the Conservative Political Action Conference just outside Washington, D.C., Carson said, “Of course, gay people should have the same rights as everyone else. But they don’t get extra rights. They don’t get to re-define marriage.”

Mr. Carson, and conservatives around the globe, please hear me out. There are two definitions of marriage. One is religious, as the various churches define it. One is legal, as the federal and state governments define it. The fight for equality is for equality under the law, as “of course, gay people should have the same rights as everyone else.”

A church may decide on its own whether or not to recognize or conduct a gay marriage. A nation must be accepting of it. This is not an extra right, it is a basic right, and under the law, it ought to be an equal right.

So, Mr. Carson, if you run for President, run knowing that your draconian views are invalid as they are ignorant to the true purpose of the push of marriage equality. Gay marriage is a fundamental right. No member of the LGBT community should be chastised, as they are not beasts. They are human. And, despite what the Bible may say, there is a separation between church and state for a reason. I hope Mr. Carson’s mindset is not shared with all opposed to gay marriage.

Well, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for enjoying Red, White and You. This is my tenth and final column. I can’t give enough thanks to The Maneater for the opportunity it has given me. Keep your heads centered, and best wishes to you all in your coming endeavors, sincerely.