The six people in the room decided to watch a Mets game together when the mom walks in and changed the channel to “her show.” Four co-workers agreed to go to a certain diner for lunch, as they jumped into the car the driver decided to go elsewhere. In both cases, the majority spoke but the minority ruled.

Most people get upset when the majority rules one way but the minority gets its way. Just ask any Democrat about the 2000 election results and you will get an earful. Yet, the Supreme Court will listen to arguments today to overturn a 2008 voter-approved ban on same sex marriage known as Proposition 8.

Proponents position the same sex marriage debate as a civil rights issue of marriage equality while those against lament for the sanctity of marriage and say the court should not redefine marriage. This issue has dominated more news coverage than warranted.

I do not think the Federal Government should not stick its Pinocchio nose where it does not belong. Same-sex marriage is a matter for the states to decide, not the Federal government. Nine states have approved same-sex marriage — Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, Washington — and the District of Columbia.

On the other hand, 31 states have amended their constitutions to prohibit same-sex marriage. Why should a minority of states and people dictate what the country should do?

I am not against same-sex couples having the same legal access to attendant benefits or any other benefit afforded married heterosexual couples. There are legal ways to ensure that happens without the circus created by an issue driven media more intent on pushing an agenda than covering the news.

The mess began when President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 1996 that defines marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman. The law gives same-sex couples the legal protection they desire but the Federal Government does not recognize civil unions as marriage and US states are not obligated to recognize them because of DOMA.

It seems to me the federal government should amend DOMA to allow civil unions the same benefits as marriage. That will satisfy those who want equal rights and those who want to preserve the marriage definition. Of course that will not happen because each side has a political agenda.

If President Obama is serious about his position to recognize same-sex marriage as marriage he should put it on the November ballot for the nation to decide. The majority should rule.