Victory!
The fight for marriage equality for same-sex couples has come to a stop — for the moment — in California, and it’s about time.
Like all good things, there cannot be victory without some naysayers, and in this case, recent decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court have brought about many of them.
In the time since the Supreme Court essentially overturned Proposition 8 and repealed a piece of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), I have noticed that there has been common criticism coming from radio talk shows, particularly those for Hispanic audiences.
The argument, among these audiences, is that the Supreme Court’s actions blurred the separation between church and state.
And yet, the question of allowing gay marriage is an ethical issue that does not in any way infiltrate the church’s rule.
After all, the separation of church and state has nothing to do with allowing unity between two people.
In fact, the Supreme Court’s actions have served to emphasize a separation of church and state.
The Supreme Court’s actions allow for same-sex married couples — in states where same-sex marriage is legal — to receive the federal benefits that heterosexual couples normally receive.
These benefits include but are not limited to those pertaining to taxes, immigration, emergency medical decisions and family visitation.
Before the repeal of a key aspect of DOMA, if a gay person’s partner died, the remaining partner would not be able to receive any of the benefits mentioned above.
In addition, the partner could be denied the right to see their loved one in a hospital after his or her death.
To critics who say that the Supreme Court’s rulings violate the separation between church and state, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment validates the court’s actions.
The Establishment Clause states that “laws and policies [must] have a secular purpose [and] not be based on religious rationales.”
The Supreme Court’s ruling did not blur the line between church and state because it did not approve or disapprove of anything based on “religious rationales.”
Instead, the court’s ruling was based entirely on an issue of equality. Legally married same-sex couples were deprived of federal recognition, which is unquestionably given to married heterosexual couples.
And besides, weren’t same-sex couples denied these rights because of religious rationale?
If anything, the Supreme Court has drawn a clear line between church and state here.
By giving same-sex couples the right to marry in California and have their marriage be federally recognized, the Supreme Court honored its commitment to equality.
Jovanna Madrigal is a junior journalism major and an assistant opinions editor at the Daily 49er.