I know for many people around the world the subject of same-sex couples is not a pleasant one. But, I have to admire the way in which South Africa's ruling ANC party leaders got down to brass tacks and established with certainty the standard with which this issue should be judged.

Using that standard, in November 2006, South Africa became the fifth nation to sanction gay marriage, after the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain and Canada.

For some people the issue has already been decided by their religion and its impression of "the word of God."

Religions are many. Even more plentiful are ideas about what is right. The ANC, however, even with many members in religious opposition to gay marriage, has chosen to hold up the Constitution -- presumably modeled on our own in America -- as the standard. It prohibits discrimination against South Africans based on race, religion, gender or sexual orientation.

Couldn't get any clearer than that.

Though most of lawmakers oppose gay marriage, the parliament on Tuesday voted for the measure 230-41. The New York Times reported that the governing ANC party whip-cracked decisively and members were expected to support the bill, "regardless of their personal beliefs"

A South African newspaper, The Sunday Independent, quoted the party's caucus chairman, Vytjie Mentor as saying there was "no such thing as a free vote or a vote of conscience."

"How do you give someone permission to discriminate in the name of the A.N.C.?" he said. "How do you allow for someone to vote against the Constitution?"

A very compelling argument.

The African Christian Democratic Party opposed the bill and said the Parliament had ignored the views of average citizens, as well as international norms. "We are out of step with the rest of Africa and with the rest of world," he said. "The international norm is civil unions, as opposed to same-sex marriages. What happened today conflicts with the views of the majority of South Africans."

In recent history we have seen the "international norm" support slavery and bigotry. When Sammy Davis Jr, a famous black American entertainer in the mid-20th century, married white Swedish-born actress May Britt in 1960, interracial marriage was still illegal in 31 U.S. states out of 50.

In the film classic, Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, normal, average parents are suddenly confronted with the interracial marriage of their daughter. It portrays the angst caused by such couples in society at the time. A sweet old Irish-Catholic priest advises the father, who is faced with his own prejudice, that "the matter here is that these two are in love."

Barring all your own personal prejudice from coloring the issue, what we've really got with same-sex marriage is two people in a committed relationship who want the same rights, to inheritance and guardianship and hospital visitation and respect, as any other two people.

In the recent US mid-term elections, only Arizona voted down bans on gay marriage, propogated on ballots in six states (even when amendments limited the rights of all unmarried couples, to form contracts whether gay or heterosexual).

When will Americans cease to support what is the historical norm and look into the heart of their own Constitution? At its heart is the framers' penchant for freedom, for individual rights trumping the government's right to dictate its morality or religious beliefs on any individual. Really, it is the heart of true Conservatism.

The most compelling argument against clinging to any religious determination about gay marriage comes from the author of the U.S. Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson abhorred most the man who cleaved to historical norms. On the wall of his memorial in Washington D.C., I once read these words and my breath was halted by the clarity of his vision. I know today Jefferson would applaud the clear vision of the ANC leaders in South Africa:

"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."