Friday, May 16, 2008

Stirring it Up?

Yesterday, California's Supreme Court struck down the State's ban on same sex marriage as unconstitutional. I believe that's true: that the government provides certain marital benefits and priveleges that have no association with the religious morality question. If the government grants those rights to one group but not others, it is discriminatory.

You guys know I've struggled with articulating my feelings on this because I've experienced some profound personal loss in the matter. Yesterday's ruling does a little bit to restore my faith but frankly, it falls short. The Federal government administers many of the priveleges of marriage and therefore, they must address the matter directly and cease wiping their hands of it by deferring to the individual states. I've been fairly outspoken about this in campaign web-circles but its just not going to be the issue this year given how much work GWB has created for the candidates....

I found a really nicely written, non-partisan ('tho pro same-sex marriage) op-ed on yesterday's decision in the Washington Post. I wish I'd said it so well.

3 comments:

Lyman said...

At least its a very good step in the right direction.

Kathy said...

Oh, of course; and the CA Supreme Court has no more reach than this; that's understood. They've made a very positive step. I just think that folks need to be aware that state-based rulings will never be adequate on their own...

Don said...

This may go unnoticed since it was posted awhile back, but I am still trying to recover from my time in the recliner, but what I would prefer rather than for the government to endorse same-sex marriage, would be for the government, at least federally, to stay out of the marriage endorsement business at all. I believe it to be equally discriminating for me to get a tax break because I am married, while a single person does not.