Separate and inequal

Most people have strong views about the right to marry, regardless of the side of the issue on which they stand. To put it simply, they either favor protecting everyone’s rights or they propose to grant equal rights only to people like themselves. Many of these opinions were likely aroused when the California State Supreme Court ruled its state laws defining marriage as between a man and a woman unconstitutional last week.\nPresident Bush’s statement four years ago, that “marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society,” illustrates but one argument those against same-sex marriage invoke.\nIf I were taking the SAT, I might say this view is to the real world as weapons of mass destruction are to Iraq. Making marriage accessible to all regardless of gender is, in fact, a win-win situation. Those opposed to it don’t suffer any substantial loss; they’re still allowed to marry whomever they wish and indoctrinate their children in whatever belief system they choose. Simultaneously, same-sex couples are reaffirmed as full, rather than second-class, citizens by their government.\nEven those who ostensibly support marriage rights for everyone sometimes allow their faulty logic to stunt equality. First, they say we can’t let same-sex couples marry now because society needs time to adjust. However, a citizen’s equal worth cannot be undermined simply because inequality happens to be convenient. Second, some suppose that gays already have the right to marry, the implicit condition being that it’s to a person of the opposite sex. But granting virtually useless rights to people and giving these the misnomer of substantial rights prevents equality by masking a serious problem.\nEven before last Thursday’s developments, Californians were hardly living in the dark ages of human rights, their government having recognized many of these critical rights by providing for civil unions. \nWhat’s so special about marriage, then?\nAdmittedly, I used to be a proponent of establishing national civil unions for same-sex couples because it seemed like a way to appease conservatives wanting to “protect” marriage but still make important rights available to everyone. Though they offer a means of equality before the law in theory, civil unions fail to deliver on all the tangible opportunities they promise. They put forth a brand of idealistic discrimination by supposing that one group of people is unworthy of marriage but should be allowed a few of the same privileges anyway. \nOur nation agreed a half-century ago that separate could never actually be equal.\nThe California State Supreme Court should be lauded for recognizing the importance of ensuring that equality is granted not only on paper, but also in a manner accessible and useful to its citizens, gay or straight.