Wedded to the Idea of Discrimination?
Former gubernatorial hopeful, Kinky Friedman, often joked on the campaign trail in Texas that he supports gay marriage because "they have right to be just as miserable as the rest of us!" Cynicism (or soothsaying) notwithstanding, is the California constitution going to continue allowing discrimination through separate legal status? Below is an op-ed by Nancy D. Polikoff in today's LA Times.
Marriage isn't the half of it
Laws should grant the same rights to all of today's families
Four years ago, when San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom declared by fiat that the state's ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional, television cameras captured for the whole world the images of gay and lesbian couples inundating the streets outside City Hall. In less than a month, more than 4,000 same-sex couples wed there, until the California Supreme Court stopped the weddings and later declared the marriages invalid. The court said it would willingly hear a constitutional challenge brought in a more orderly fashion
On Tuesday, the court will follow through on its offer, hearing oral arguments in the cases of 23 same-sex couples seeking the right to marry. Although California has a comprehensive domestic partnership law, gay rights advocates argue that the creation of that separate legal status falls short of the state Constitution's guarantee of equality.
They're right. Separate is not equal; it is a mark of second-class status.
But the quest for marriage rights has obscured a more fundamental problem in the law. Marriage is a bright line dividing relationships that matter from those that don't -- and it shouldn't be. Retirement and death benefits, hospital visitation and medical decision-making, employee benefits, the ability to use sick or family leave, division of assets when a relationship ends and tax levies are just a few examples of laws granting "special rights" based on marriage.
Marriage is no longer the only way people organize their families and relationships. State-recognized domestic partnerships aren't a good legal dividing line either. Those just extend rights to a few more people without questioning why such couples have these legal rights in the first place.
The law should value the families and relationships that people value. So a better approach is to ask why a particular law exists and then include within the law all the relationships appropriate to that purpose.
More
Marriage isn't the half of it
Laws should grant the same rights to all of today's families
Four years ago, when San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom declared by fiat that the state's ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional, television cameras captured for the whole world the images of gay and lesbian couples inundating the streets outside City Hall. In less than a month, more than 4,000 same-sex couples wed there, until the California Supreme Court stopped the weddings and later declared the marriages invalid. The court said it would willingly hear a constitutional challenge brought in a more orderly fashion
On Tuesday, the court will follow through on its offer, hearing oral arguments in the cases of 23 same-sex couples seeking the right to marry. Although California has a comprehensive domestic partnership law, gay rights advocates argue that the creation of that separate legal status falls short of the state Constitution's guarantee of equality.
They're right. Separate is not equal; it is a mark of second-class status.
But the quest for marriage rights has obscured a more fundamental problem in the law. Marriage is a bright line dividing relationships that matter from those that don't -- and it shouldn't be. Retirement and death benefits, hospital visitation and medical decision-making, employee benefits, the ability to use sick or family leave, division of assets when a relationship ends and tax levies are just a few examples of laws granting "special rights" based on marriage.
Marriage is no longer the only way people organize their families and relationships. State-recognized domestic partnerships aren't a good legal dividing line either. Those just extend rights to a few more people without questioning why such couples have these legal rights in the first place.
The law should value the families and relationships that people value. So a better approach is to ask why a particular law exists and then include within the law all the relationships appropriate to that purpose.
More
Labels: Discrimination, Gay Marriage
Posted by Edward Headington @ 3/03/2008 02:36:00 PM
5 Comments:
Well, things are moving again—not sure who provided the laxative, but kudos thereto. - On marriage, S. T. Coleridge wrote "The most happy marriage I can imagine to myself would be the union of a deaf man to a blind woman."
Edward is pretty good at copy and pasting.
Edward is the new spokesman for illegal alien cholos and gays.
Next Ed will be writing about gay sex between cholos in prisons, come on people get on the Love Boat!!! Support the marriage of gay cholos in prison !!!!
Ah besame mi culo!
Speaking of the sissies I always said serve food fresh and keep dick clean.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home