We would like to think that marriage is relatively simple. The institution predates democracy even, but over time we complicated it until we ended up where we are today. Now, it’s shrouded in both state- and federal-level laws and statutes, and it’s more of a legal consequence than it is a representation of two peoples’ love and commitment to each other. 

Marriage has been defined and redefined for millennia across cultures the world around, and the Supreme Court needs to redefine it once more. Splashed across several national and metropolitan papers last week were reports on the two major same-sex marriage cases on the Supreme Court’s docket. If either of the laws are struck down as unconstitutional — as they should be — the way marriage has been defined could change dramatically. 

For an hour on Tuesday and nearly two hours on Wednesday, the nine highest judges in the country heard arguments regarding the constitutionality of Proposition 8, the California state amendment passed by a ballot initiative, on the first day and the Defense of Marriage Act, the 1996 federal law signed by President Bill Clinton, on the second. Proponents of same-sex marriage want both struck down, while those who support them, like the U.S. House of Representatives in the DOMA case, want them upheld.

In a nutshell, six of the justices on Tuesday questioned whether the Prop 8 case should even be before the Court because, as a constantly changing social issue, the Court may not be ready to rule on such a large issue with this particular case. Similar questions arose from the hearing on DOMA on Wednesday, but the larger debate honed in more on federalism and states’ rights.

But even striking the laws down is tricky: Marriage is a state’s right, and the preponderance of states have laws on the books expressly banning same-sex marriage or defining marriage as between one man and one woman. On the other hand, public opinion on same-sex marriage has been on the rise and continues to gain momentum. The laws and public opinion of the country sit at fairly stark contrasts.

Luckily, the Court likely will not rule in favor of reducing equality, but they may rule narrowly, leaving the marriage debate for the states still. And that leaves the LGBT rights movement largely where it is now — changing, but not fast enough.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor said Tuesday that this is an issue still developing among Americans, and she questioned if now was the time to rule on marriage. To answer her question and the questions of anyone else, this is absolutely the time to rule on same-sex marriage and never has there been a better time.

The current American definition of marriage is entirely un-American in its inequality as it tears families apart, prevents new ones from forming and burdens people emotionally and financially.

If the justices are not keen on the equality argument — which based off of their oral arguments, they may not be — then they need to hear one more.

The Court may not be ready for a redefinition, state governments may not be, but the American people are. The government made a big mistake in 1996, and the Court could fix it in 2013.