Free: Court ruling a victory for equal rights

Over the past few weeks as students have enjoyed the last days of summer, over in California things got real.

Thousands of Californians’ lives changed for the better after a judge overturned Propositon 8 on August 4, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman.

This was a major victory for the LGBT community and it certainly won’t be the last.

Gay marriage must eventually win out because of the United States’ devotion to the principles of equality and the separation of church and state.

It’s so obvious it may be trie, but in this country everyone is theoretically born equal. I know as well as anyone else that this doesn’t exactly pan out in practice but there’s no reason we can’t continue to work for the ideal.

Full marriage rights are still out of reach for nearly all gay and lesbian couples, and this is simply an inequality. A long-term interdependent couple is a long-term interdependent couple, no matter what the gender or sexuality of the people in it. Judge Vaughn Walker, who struck down Proposition 8, argued for the equality of all couples in his ruling.

“Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital unions,” Walker wrote.

As it stands, the law denies just some of those couples the social security benefits, next-of-kin rights, automatic inheritance rights and a myriad of other things that go hand-in-hand with marriage. This is both actively discriminatory and directly harmful to individual people.

Some cities and states have a domestic partner registry, including Lawrence. However, this provides only recognition by the city that two people are in a domestic partnership, and absolutely none of the legal rights that are associated with marriage.

Every civil rights movement is a corrective, a realignment between what the Constitution says and what the public practices. Right now, there is still a massive disparity between the treatment of gays and lesbians and the idea of equal protection under the law found in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

When you hear opponents of same-sex marriage articulating their position, often you will discern that they are vehemently against marriage equality because of their belief system. Now, I don’t want to knock religion, at least not all of it and not right now, but I strongly question the validity of such opinions as they regard public policy.

Fortunately, one of the foundational concepts of this country is the separation of church and state. This means the government can’t oppose something just because it doesn’t jive with a prevailing belief system, and it can’t legislate morality.

Relying on a book or a gut feeling is simply not enough to oppose equality. There have to be reasons and facts and studies and evidence (you know, science), to support something. Judge Walker understood this, and acted on it. With his precedent courts across the nation should eventually recognize the right to marry for same-sex couples right along with opposite-sex couples.

As Dr. King said half a century ago, “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”

With this hopeful sentiment we must continue to support equality for everyone, and not stop fighting until all discrimination is ended.

Free is a sophomore from Blue Springs, Mo., in women’s studies.

Contact at editor@kansan.com .
  • Updated Aug. 19, 2010 at 6:00 am
  • metacognition

    I talk to people who are against marriage and they say things like prop 8 helps defend marriage or whatever.

    I ask them if they are for smaller government, why do they support federal or state intervention into private unions? Aren’t marriages between two people, their possible deity and their families?

    The state has no business funneling dollars to support marriages. It is not a federally mandated task. It distracts from the real issues affecting us and our federal government.

    Disallowing certain individual human beings from marrying is absolutely divisive and anti constitutional. Too bad religious zealots cannot determine that the men who cry foul at other men having relations are also the most turned on by the idea/picture of two men doing it. Scientists have found that the loudest men against gay men tend to have the biggest homosexual arousal. Why can’t religious zealots see the same thing? Is Ted Haggard not an explicit enough example? Should I bring in Catholocism and what happens in the seminary? The men in the “middle east” who hold hands, put each other’s hands in each others pockets and only call the receiver ‘gay’?
    Please.

  • xz007

    A misuse of the term “science” in that article. I believe Ms Free meant logic. Science is an ammoral system that can’t really dictate legislative opinion; science can’t tell you that murder is wrong, only what can incur death and what death looks like. Also, the editors of the Kansan really need to get better at proofreading – “trie?” It’s “trite”, guys. Get with the program.

  • Jonelson

    An addendum to this is that Tuesday the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed to hear the appeal against the ruling. They also placed a hold on the lower court’s ruling ensuring that the Prop. 8 will remain enforced pending a decision. Though opening arguments start in December it is likely that regardless of the 9th Circuit’s decision it will be appealed again to the Supreme Court. I do believe that justice will prevail in this issue, but the time frame, as Dr. King implied, will still be measured in years.

    That being said this is a good piece of writing and I do think that more people would see this as an issue of equality, not morality, if they would at least be open to considering it. Unfortunately logic is often the price you pay to embrace religious dogma and to abandon logic is to consign our democracy to failure.

    None are free until all are free.

    -JN

  • Savage

    What is the definition of marriage? Historically and legally it has been the union of one man and one woman, and is done publically due for many cultural reasons, among them are cohabitation and raising a family. So, the term “gay marriage” is oxymoronical, it literally has no real meaning.

    But, let’s look at this constitutionally. When the 14th amendment was drafted, can anyone honestly and logically believe that those writing the amendment did so in order for it to be interpreted 140 years later as to mean two men or two women can not only marry but that individual states must allow them to do so? I know 5 Supreme Court justices that agree with me. And that is all that’s needed.

  • mellotron

    All people are created equal.

    All lifestyles are NOT created equal.

  • mellotron

    Btw, here are some important reasons why Judge Walker’s ruling is wrong:

    http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/08/1490

  • sjschlag

    The only reason prop 8 was made was so that heterosexual religious people could feel morally superior to homosexuals. Let’s face it- the institution of marriage is becoming outdated, and was falling apart long before homosexuals started to fight for their equal rights. Just look at the divorce rate in this country and tell me that the institution of marriage is as strong as the rock on which St. Peter built his church. I’m curious as to why there is even a fight over this in the first place. Can’t we all ( I mean everyone- not just the homos) just get civil unions and let our churches call them whatever they want to? Everyone should have the right to enter into a legally binding agreement between two people that allows for the sharing of assets, raising of children, etc. and the right to hire an attorney when it doesn’t work out. Churches should retain their right to discriminate against those who don’t meet their moral standard, since, you know, Jesus doesn’t want any riff-raff getting saved by his private institutions….