Last Tuesday, our nation took a great stride forward in the name of equality. However, in California, a coalition of religious bigots, homophobic minorities, and right wing 'values' voters institutionalized discrimination and nullified the marriages of some 18,000 families. My question is this: why do these people feel that they are entitled to cast judgment on the relationships of others?
Don't like gays in your church? Good news, you don't have to perform gay marriage ceremonies, because marriage is a legal package of rights and responsibilities and not a religious ceremony. That's the beauty of living in a democracy and not a theocracy; the separation of church and state protects both religious expression and secular equality.
As for the homophobic members of certain minority communities, it wasn't too long ago that interracial marriage was outlawed. At the time, people claimed that interracial marriage was 'unnatural' and against God's will, that it would somehow undermine 'traditional' marriage, and that interracial couples were inherently unfit parents. Now that we have elected an interracial president, perhaps it's time to reconsider marriage equality for all.
Lastly, for conservative 'values' voters, wasn't one of the core principles of Republican ideology a respect of both state's rights and individual liberty? Didn't you want to get the government off your backs and out of your private affairs? Those libertarian values are admirable, but they must extend to all citizens. Let California be California and Utah be Utah.
It is my hope that the California Supreme Court once again intervenes to preserve marriage equality. Irregardless of the narrow victory of this biased and spiteful measure, the courts have a responsibility to act as the guardians of liberty. The seminal court decisions of the civil rights era were also made against the will of a hostile majority, but it was the right thing to do.
Don't like gays in your church? Good news, you don't have to perform gay marriage ceremonies, because marriage is a legal package of rights and responsibilities and not a religious ceremony. That's the beauty of living in a democracy and not a theocracy; the separation of church and state protects both religious expression and secular equality.
As for the homophobic members of certain minority communities, it wasn't too long ago that interracial marriage was outlawed. At the time, people claimed that interracial marriage was 'unnatural' and against God's will, that it would somehow undermine 'traditional' marriage, and that interracial couples were inherently unfit parents. Now that we have elected an interracial president, perhaps it's time to reconsider marriage equality for all.
Lastly, for conservative 'values' voters, wasn't one of the core principles of Republican ideology a respect of both state's rights and individual liberty? Didn't you want to get the government off your backs and out of your private affairs? Those libertarian values are admirable, but they must extend to all citizens. Let California be California and Utah be Utah.
It is my hope that the California Supreme Court once again intervenes to preserve marriage equality. Irregardless of the narrow victory of this biased and spiteful measure, the courts have a responsibility to act as the guardians of liberty. The seminal court decisions of the civil rights era were also made against the will of a hostile majority, but it was the right thing to do.
