Inequal rights for equal folks

The California Supreme Court overturned a ruling against gay marriage this week. The fight wages on as supporters on both sides rally for the battle to make the ruling permanent. Obviously, there are plenty of heated discussions going on. Jed Hartman has a nice summary of what the ruling really means.

I summed up my feeling on the issue over on Chris McKitterick‘s journal yesterday:

I’ve never quite understood how it can be claimed that we (the United States) have separation between church and state, yet the concept of a legal union is inseparable from a religious ceremony in the minds of so many.

In my mind, any man or woman, in any combination, should be able to be legally “married” and obtain all legal benefits of such.

Religion should play absolutely no part in the legal process of marriage. Perhaps it’s my limited perspective, but the majority of those I see/hear/read about are protesting and complaining based on their personal religious views.

To me, it’s really that simple. There is absolutely no reason a person should be treated differently based on their ethnic group, gender, sexual preference, or social status. In short, people should be judged on their actions.

4 thoughts on “Inequal rights for equal folks

  1. I’ll go you one better.

    Why should the state be allowed to say who can marry who? Why is marriage a question for the government to answer?

    People shouldn’t have to have the permission of the government to get married any more than they need their permission on what to have for dinner…

  2. That’s an interesting point. I don’t think the government should be giving permission, but as the supreme legal entity we have to represent us it falls to them to recognize legal unions.

    Basic human rights should not be a matter for the state to decide. We should be able to marry who we choose and not have the recognition of that change based on which state line we cross.

    Married vs. unmarried people are treated quite differently in our society today. Health benefits, insurance rates, taxation, all varied based on marital status. I’m not saying it’s right but it’s one thing I don’t see changing anytime soon.

  3. I find it amusing that we’re already seeing some noise from the usual sources about “activist judges” in this case. The whole thing really is amusing if you look at it:

    1. California legislature passes a law allowing for same-sex unions.
    2. Der Governator vetoes it, saying it needs to be looked at by the courts.
    3. The courts uphold the law based on an overwhelming body of prior discrimination case law.

    So, wait, where’s the activism here?


  4. To me, it’s really that simple. There is absolutely no reason a person should be treated differently based on their ethnic group, gender, sexual preference, or social status. In short, people should be judged on their actions.

    Could have not said it any better myself!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>