Thursday, May 15, 2008

San Francisco is Rejoicing



History was made in California today when the CA Supreme Court ruled that a ban against gay marriage was unconstitutional. While the ruling may have little effect, as it may ultimately be nullified by a proposed ballot initiative for this November's elections, this is a huge moment in the fight for equality that has been waged by same-sex marriage advocates across the country.

Individuals that fail to see the parallels between the prohibition of gay marriage and an earlier prohibition against interracial marriages are nothing but roadblocks impeding the progress of this great nation.

As one wise friend of mine once said, "gay relations aren't for me, but if you like it, I love it." It is not our place to dictate what should or shouldn't happen in the bedroom or what should or shouldn't be recognized as a marriage signifying commitment and the highest forms of love.

Even if this victory is short lived, the coming months are going to be amazing. The number of wedding ceremonies are going to skyrocket. The Village People will once again have an album in the top ten. Clay Aiken bookings are going to shoot through the roof. Even Jeremiah Wright might experience a "gay marriage" boost as religious fanatics the nation over will likely have harsh words for us liberals here in California.

Let the games begin. Bay to Breakers is going to be even more fun this year.

1 comment:

Horchata said...

Blog comments are hardly the place to hash these conversations out - especially among friends/rivals.

I'm going to preface my comments by saying that the state should absolutely allow the marriage of any two consenting adults, regardless of their gender/sexual orientation.

BUT, as someone who thought he was going to marry a woman of a different race, I don't find the two to be completely analogous.

The ban on interracial marriage was about maintaining the "purity" of one race and the subjugation of others. For some, however, the gay marriage question revolves around the definition of the institution itself.

I bring it down to this: a church should have no right to refuse to perform a marriage ceremony for an interracial couple. They should, however, be able to decide whether or not to perform ceremonies for same-sex couples.

That being said - how about an interracial, same-sex marriage? What do you say?