One step closer

tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7130602323621499071.post-67769038086630063622008-05-18T00:14:00.004+01:002008-05-18T15:38:41.237+01:00One step closerI know, I know, this is a running blog. This post has absolutely to do with running, and may generate strong feeling in the comments, but it's about something too near and dear to me not to comment on. As of May 15, same-sex couples in California have <a href="http://www.lambdalegal.org/publications/factsheets/fs_marriage-for-same-sex-couples-in-california.html">access </a>to the rights, benefits, and responsibilities of marriage. NY state <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/02/nyregion/02samesex.html">recognizes </a>such marriages performed in other states. It's a happy day for us. Meg and I will be getting a legal marriage the next time we're in California (likely later this year). We had our "real" wedding, in front of friends and family, a year and a half ago. We've owned real estate together for nearly 5 years. We're clearly committed to one another without the need for a state - not even our own - to tell us so. <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/18/weekinreview/18severson.html?ex=1211774400&en=3f53b3fbd99418b8&ei=5070&emc=eta1">So why do it again?</a> Let me start by repeating what I said above - we consider the day we stood up in front of our loved ones and publically promised our lives to each other to be our real wedding day. But the protections offered by the law are either not available at all (the right to inherit from one another without paying taxes) or only available by explicit additional legal paperwork (the right to visit one another in hospital and be considered next of kin). I actually believe that marriage is a religious rite that should be separated from the civil benefits of committed partnerships. If your church says not to recognize same-sex partnerships, more power to you - that's the beauty of separation of church and state. But the state should not be in the business of providing rights and priviledges to one group of people and denying them to another. And as long as these civil benefits are conferred via the religious rite, they should be equally accessible to all people. So, if you don't support same-sex marriage, work to separate the civil benefits from the teachings of your church. Because regardless of what your god tells you, the Constitution prohibits discrimination.Megan Hallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01733285819106564601noreply@blogger.com