Comments on: Inequal rights for equal folks

By: Glenn

Glenn — Sat, 24 May 2008 04:14:40 +0000

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!

By: Matt

Matt — Sat, 17 May 2008 19:54:24 +0000

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?

By: Adam

Adam — Sat, 17 May 2008 16:42:23 +0000

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.

By: hernan43

hernan43 — Sat, 17 May 2008 16:28:40 +0000

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…