Today marks the 10th anniversary of the death of Matthew Shepard, the 21 year old University of Wyoming student who was brutally beaten and left for dead in a field because he was gay. (The initial motive was likely robbery, however, the long and the short of it is that Matt Shepard was beaten, pistol whipped, and tied to a fence post by people who ultimately decided to brutalize him based on his sexuality.)
In the past ten years, admittedly, a lot has changed. As of this past Friday, Connecticut became the third state to legalize gay marriage at the judicial level, reasoning eloquently that “Interpreting our state constitutional provisions in accordance with firmly established equal protection principles leads inevitably to the conclusion that gay persons are entitled to marry the otherwise qualified same-sex partner of their choice." Still though, as the fight for equal rights (yes, equal, not "special") is advancing, we are still experiencing set backs, as states pass amendments to their state constitutions declaring that marriage is to be defined as "between a man and a woman". During the 2004 election cycle, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Ohio, Utah and Oregon have passed amendments to their constitutions doing just this, and this year Arizona, California, and Florida have measures on the November ballot to do the same.
It is important that voters in these three districts stand up and fight for equality, but it is of utmost importance that the marriage ban in California, Proposition 8, not pass. Currently California allows gay couples to marry after the recent Supreme Court decision, so a constitutional amendment would be a massive set back for marriage equality. The rights afforded to same sex couples through marriage are essential to legitimizing relationships, and extend much further than any proposed domestic partnership legislation ever could. Without marriage rights, same sex couples lack visitation rights for hospital stays, are exempt from tax protected inheritance rights, and are disallowed equitable ownership of property. (The last alludes to the manner in which a married couple may hold title to a property, as contrasted to two unrelated persons, and the subsequent tax liability when ownership in the property is transferred or dissolved.)
It is preposterous to imagine that we can somehow legitimize one consenting couple's committed relationship while delegitimizing another, and justifying this requires a baffling amount of logical acrobatics. It wasn't so long ago that the same arguments were made in favor of disallowing mixed race marriages, and the same arguments made in favor of prohibiting miscegenation fell when confronted with basic and inalienable human rights. The conceit that the will of the majority can restrict the rights of a minority is wrong headed and purely unConstitutional.
It's not possible to stress the importance of, if you are in California, being sure that you vote, and vote "no" on Prop 8; if you're not in California, it's still possible to affect change by donating to the cause
here. This is an historic time in American politics, on all fronts, and I can only hope that when we look back in the next ten years, we have accomplishments for which we can be proud, as a people, and as an equal, unified nation.
