"Separate But Equal" Didn't Work for Segregated Schools, and Doesn't Work for Marriage Either

In the state of Washington, there was news on the website towleroad.com about the expanding benefits in the domestic partnership program in that state. Click here for more. This was accompanied by the report on NPR's "Morning Edition" which covered the California Supreme Court hearing regarding the constitutionality of the domestic partnership versus marriage issue in that state.

What I heard in the NPR report was these important, and valid points, that need to be considered:
* Up to 1948, there was the denial of inter-racial marriage, for much of the same reason that the State of California will not allow LGBT people to marry;
* The argument that "marriage is between one man and one woman, with the purpose of pro-creation" no longer holds up in this day and age, because more and more married couples choose not "bear children." Thus, should they have been allowed to be married while remaining empty nesters?
* The domestic partnerships, civil unions, same-sex pledges are called "parallel tracks," to marriage, which means that they are "separate" from the marriage "track" but the lawyer was trying to argue that they are "equal" institutions in the eyes of the State of California. Why have two separate but "equal tracks"? Why not have one and simply call it "marriage?"

The "separate but equal" argument did not hold up with segregated schools, especially here in the southeastern part of this country. And "separate but equal" does not hold up for marriage and same sex unions either.

It is time to change.

Peace, Brett