- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
To those that think this is 'a battle for the legislature,' consider Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967). In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that laws banning interracial couples from marrying was unconstitutional. 1967, people! We're not talking about the beginning of the civil rights movement, we're talking about the end, when equality for African-Americans was supposedly accomplished. Did you know that the FIRST time that a majority of Americans approved of interracial marriage was in 1991? Issues of equality under the law should not be an issue for "the people" to decide as a majority. These issues have a firm right and wrong answer; unlike some other policy questions such as tax reform. They are questions of human dignity.
The debate about whether same-sex couples or opposite-sex couples are more suited to be married is irrelevant. As this article noted, marriage licenses are not a limited resource, there is no demonstrated harm to opposite-sex couples by allowing same-sex couples to marry. Thus, no rational basis can be demonstrated for denying same-sex couples.
Regarding whether children SHOULD have same-sex parents, the debate is also irrelevant. Children DO have same-sex parents, and by denying their parents protection under the law, the NYSC has harmed the exact children it purports to protect. I thoroughly enjoyed this article. Here's hoping we don't get the same result in Washington State (my home) in the coming months as its Supreme Court is expected to give a decision very soon.
