by Kris Olds

Created on: May 30, 2008

The role of the Supreme Court is to ensure that the laws of a state are in accordance with the constitution of said state. If the Supreme Court finds that there are is an inequity or an injustice, it has the obligation to hand down a ruling that changes the discrepancy. California's recent ruling regarding gay marriage did exactly that.

This is not an issue of gay rights or activist judges. On the purest level, it is a state realizing that it's laws treat one group of citizens differently from another in an unlawful manner. In this day and age, marriage comes with significant benefits that are afforded by the states. An inexhaustive list of these benefits would include tax breaks, insurance benefits, rights of inheritance and the ability to make medical decisions in an emergency. The gender of individuals does not impact the ability of a person to receive these benefits. Why is it then that marriage would be so tied to gender as to render a portion of the population ineligible to receive these rights?

In section one, article one of the constitution of the state of California, it states that all people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy. Sarcasm aside, pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness and privacy speak directly to the opportunities to marry. No where does the constitution say that "unless the two people involved shall be one man and one woman". In fact, in article one, section four, the constitution goes on to say that the Legislature shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. The argument against gay marriage almost always boils down to a religious argument. And a Judeo Christian argument at that. The Supreme Court recognized that there was a need to clarify the understanding of marriage in order to protect all it's citizens. There is no question, based on the verbiage of this sacred document, that allowing gay marriage was the only way to guarantee that all the residents of the state would be protected.

The Supreme Court of California did not rule to legalize gay marriage for any political reason. There is no agenda being being forced nor any liberal control network influencing decision makers. This decision was handed down because on the simplest level, each resident of the state of California should be able to receive the benefits that the state offers. To offer one group the opportunity to benefit but to prevent another group from the same opportunity is legally, ethically and morally wrong. And California made that wrong right.

Learn more about this author, Kris Olds.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.