A friend just asked me what I thought of the recent NJ Supreme Court ruling on the right of gays to marry. I was disappointed. We have only to look at recent history in South Africa to see that "separate, but equal" doesn't work. In all honesty I don't care what they call it but from a legal standpoint I think it matters. I don't think African-Americans and Whites who were affected by anti-miscegenation laws would have been happy with anything less than marriage rights and I don't think Queers should be either. However, civil unions are a half-step forward. I think all unions sanctified/registered/whatever with the state should be called "civil unions." Then, if you want or can get your religion to sanctify your union you can call it a marriage. If your church wants to give you special rights because you have obtained a "marriage" they can. But in the eyes of the law there should only be "civil unions." The State doesn't currently make a distinction between people who are married in a church or by a judge or by a justice of the peace. I think it would be an easy change for the State to make.
I think we should all be equal under the eyes of the law. Once again, it all goes back to the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence upon which this Nation was founded.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
No comments:
Post a Comment