Separate is Rarely, if Ever, Equal

The Massachusetts Supreme Court got it exactly right (WSJ) yesterday. And it was wonderful to hear - finally - a high court use the language of the civil rights movement in discussing this issue.

Whatever you call the legal union of two people, the rights of that couple should not be different based on; race, color, creed, national origin or sexual orientation. We've done the whole "separate but equal" thing before. You'd think we'd have learned our lesson.

In Wednesday's opinion, the majority, led by Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, wrote that while the state couldn't force religions to perform or recognize gay marriages, "neither may the government, under the guise of protecting 'traditional' values, even if they be the traditional values of the majority, enshrine in law an invidious discrimination that our constitution... forbids."

Whenever anyone finds themselves saying anything about "gay rights," they should instead, substitute - before opening their mouths - women or blacks or Hispanics in their statement. If that makes you hesitate to say it, then you shouldn't say it with the word gay or homosexual, either.

Are equal rights for women "special rights?" Are equal rights for non-whites "special rights?"