They got married in the morning.
This morning marked the first day in which same-sex couples could be legally wed in the District of Columbia. Not surprisingly, this sparked (even more) commentary about the national same-sex marriage debate.
Also not surprisingly, I found myself wondering, again, why there was there any debate in the first place.
During the larger part of my education, I was taught that in the United States, a marriage performed in one state would be legally-binding in the other forty-nine.
Some things, it seems, were not meant stay the same. After 1996, the Defense of Marriage Act gave state law-makers the right to pass legislation to officially refuse recognition of marriages between two people of the same gender. My second-grade social studies text, my seventh-grade civics book and all six (What can I say? I was a nerd.) of my high school history teachers became wrong in an instant.
At time, I had only one question about how and why the law passed: If this country has a constitutionally-decreed separation of church and state, why have our law-makers endorsed a decision that is clearly based on religious beliefs?
These days, I have a whole hell of a lot more questions that haven't been answered, but, like a dog with a bone, I keep chewing on that first one. And I want to know why everyone else who supports the constitution isn't asking the same thing?
Also not surprisingly, I found myself wondering, again, why there was there any debate in the first place.
During the larger part of my education, I was taught that in the United States, a marriage performed in one state would be legally-binding in the other forty-nine.
Some things, it seems, were not meant stay the same. After 1996, the Defense of Marriage Act gave state law-makers the right to pass legislation to officially refuse recognition of marriages between two people of the same gender. My second-grade social studies text, my seventh-grade civics book and all six (What can I say? I was a nerd.) of my high school history teachers became wrong in an instant.
At time, I had only one question about how and why the law passed: If this country has a constitutionally-decreed separation of church and state, why have our law-makers endorsed a decision that is clearly based on religious beliefs?
These days, I have a whole hell of a lot more questions that haven't been answered, but, like a dog with a bone, I keep chewing on that first one. And I want to know why everyone else who supports the constitution isn't asking the same thing?
posted by Tea Oli at 10:45 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home