Separate but equal

by: Adam L

Tue Dec 08, 2009 at 04:00:00 PM EST

And while I agree with pretty much all of these arguments (some to a greater degree than others), the one that always jumped out at me - and one that my wife has pointed out time and time again - is that of flat out discrimination against an entire class of Americans based on a very random factor to use for the basis of such discrimination.   One's sexual orientation is no different from skin color, eye color, hair color, religion, height, physical or mental illness or age when it comes to the arbitrary nature of this type of discrimination.

It's hard to believe that the civil rights movement is only around 50 years old, and women' suffrage is less than a century old (interestingly, New Jersey was the only state to allow women to vote for close to a 20 year period in the late 1700s).  But these items do nothing to excuse the fact that New Jersey is staring at an opportunity to be ahead of the curve on marriage equality - another equal rights issue - yet we are currently looking at a situation where something so basic, something that in twenty or fifty years will be looked at the same as civil rights or women's suffrage is now, is being debated by some (including too many Democrats) as "not for now" or not really a big deal.

Now I understand that some Senators and Assemblymen (and Assemblywomen) may be doing what they think is "politically safe".  But in addition to that being preposterous in most cases, it is truly reactionary thinking, and is no different from the "separate but equal" arguments that were made in the late 1800s.

Civil unions are, by definition, separate.  "The same legal rights" are maybe "equal" in some respects but if someone has to explain and ultimately produce some additional "proof of civil union" when their partner is heading into emergency surgery, then how is that truly equal?

Even if there wasn't horror story after horror story about how same sex couples have to struggle for the same basic rights as those who are married, the mere fact that there is a separate law on the books for civil unions and same sex couples makes it discriminatory on the face.  The additional fact that this distinction is an arbitrary one and generally steeped in religious beliefs as the basis makes it even worse - as the last I looked, it was the Constitution, not the Bible that dictates our laws.  And it is a civil law that allowed me to marry my wife - not a religious law.

The same should hold true regardless of skin color, religion, hair color or sexual orientation.  To do otherwise is nothing short of bigotry.