Oh fine. I have to write about Prop 8 in California. I started any number of comments about Obama winning the election, silly people and their misunderstandings of socialism, but ultimately I talked myself out of making remarks. They seemed redundant and unnecessary. But California voted for Prop 8 and repealed Gay Marriage and that is worth thinking about.

I understand some of the fear behind resisting Same Sex Marriage--religious people are afraid that a change in federal law will affect churches. Understanding that allows me to be more knowledgeable about their views and even sympathetic to a point; we don't have particularly concrete separation of church and state and recent years have forced a lot of the traditional powers in our country to make way for minorities. That can be disconcerting. But even understanding all of this...I just don't care. I'm about to get very undemocratic here for just a second.

I don't care that Same Sex Marriage seems unnatural to most of the country. I don't care that churches and church-goers are worried about losing their right to decide social morality. I don't care that not everyone in this country can tolerate equality. I don't think you should have to move to another state to have equitable rights with other human beings. I don't think you should have to pick your geographic location based on your race, sexuality, or religion. Same Sex Marriage isn't a gun control law, or an alcohol law, or a transportation law. We don't allow Alabama or Mississippi to pass a law that reinstates Separate but Equal. When it comes to race, matters of equality are considered fundamental because they fall under what the Constitution specifically lays out for the country: a right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

Why isn't marriage a matter of equality? Why isn't the ability to be recognized by the government, state and federal, as a married couple as clearly unequal as Jim Crow laws? Because marriage between same sex partners is unnatural? Unnecessary? Detrimental to society? All of those arguments were used against bi-racial marriage not that long ago. For a black person and white person to be sexual together was considered an abomination. Does anyone else find that funny? I'm laughing.

How do we, as a society, decide our morals and ethics? Thus far, despite separation of church and state, it seems religion, specifically Christianity, has been our go to. But we live in a country of varied religion and no religion; how can we force people to obey a law that is based on religion? What reasons, outside religious ones, are there for denying Same Sex Marriage? It isn't dangerous; it isn't hurtful. It isn't bad for the economy--a marriage between two consenting adults agreeing to live with each other as a single household in the eyes of the State. Why must we pass a law that refuses to recognize that?

Please don't think I'm being anti-religion here. If you do, I feel that's a misreading of my statements. I'm stating there is no place for religion in government, and that no one has yet to offer a convincing argument for why Same Sex Marriage should be denied on a governmental level. Churches are a private sphere and must choose their tolerances as they see fit; there are many churches that recognize homosexuals as equal, healthy members of their community. There are many that don't. My quarrel is with none of them. My point is that we continue, as a society, to pass laws based on a morality that has no place in our government and we, as a people, continue to allow bigotry to rule.

I feel it is incredibly important that all start to realize our government needs to pass laws based on the ethicality of the situation--what is most ethical for society. Morality is a private issue and has no place in law. I say that because we all carry such intensely different morals, and while they rarely cancel each other out we need a government that can navigate the difference between the wide-ranging beliefs of its people. We need a government that will promote and protect a healthy, equal, and ethical society. Just because the majority votes to be bigoted in a state, I don't think the Constitution protects them.

In the intersection of personal rights I still believe that one's right to equality will always trump another's right to bigotry.