Keep your church out of it...

So the Supreme Court heard arguments yesterday on California's Prop 8. For those who don't know (in other words, for those who have been living under a rock), Prop 8 outlawed same-sex marriage after thousands of such marriages had been legally performed.

The state of California has chosen not to defend the law against the plaintiffs' case. So a group of people claiming to represent all those who support the law are (attempting to) defend it.

This is not a case that the U.S. Supreme Court was required to hear, and I've always been surprised that they took it up. Though it would be easy enough to craft a ruling that affected only California and did not affect the legal state of same-sex marriage anywhere else, I have always thought they would boot it on standing. I hope they don't. They could potentially craft a ruling that technically affected only CA, but that paves the way for the rest of the country to allow same-sex marriages.

We shall see. Though we still have a couple of months to wait for their decision.

So here's the thing: there is no argument against same-sex marriage that can stand under even a tiny bit of scrutiny.

People say it will degrade the state of marriage, but no one can actually explain how.

People say it's bad for the kids, but no one can prove that. What's more, study after study shows that same-sex unions do not negatively impact children. The American Academy of Pediatrics has come out in support of same-sex marriage, saying that it actually benefits kids (imagine that, kids actually benefit from their parents being married to each other). Additionally, some states allow gay/lesbian couples to adopt. CA is one of these states. It is difficult to argue against same-sex marriage because it harms the kids, while actually allowing these same couples to adopt. (Are you starting to see why the state of CA itself passed on defending this law?)

People say that the purpose of marriage is procreation and since gay/lesbian couples cannot, on their own, procreate, they should be denied the right to marry. This seems to be the latest argument (the anti camp has to keep making things up as argument after argument fails to tred water). But surely you see the problem here? What about hetero couples who wish to marry and not have kids? What about hetero couples who wish to marry who cannot procreate, whether due to age or other physical issues? Should these couples be denied the right to marry? Pretty much everyone says that no, these couples should not be denied the right of marriage and that to do so would actually be unconstitutional.

And of course, people say that according to their church and their reading of The Bible, same-sex marriage is not a God-sanctioned activity. Here's the main problem with that argument: no one is asking your God or your church to approve. People who love each other simply want the legal right to marry and to then receive the same rights and benefits accorded to all the hetero married couples out there. You know, little things like being able to make medical decisions, to enjoy the tax benefits, to be able to have joint insurance, to have their marriage recognized in every state to which they may move or travel.

We are talking about a legal status. And that has absolutely nothing to do with your church. If your church is against gays and lesbians, then so be it. No court ruling will affect your church's position on same-sex marriage just as your church's position should have no affect on the legal status of... well, anyone.

Try...

Where there is desire
There is going to be a flame

Where there is a flame
Someone's bound to get burned

But just because it burns
Doesn't mean you're gonna die

You gotta get up and
Try and try and try

You gotta get up and try

-Pink, Try

She's singing about love and relationships, but really this has a broader application: Wanting something creates vulnerability, it opens you up to getting hurt. But you have to keep trying. You just have to.