Once, the color of skin was a reason for discrimination (including not having the right to marry). Historically, gender class was a justification for denying civil rights such as voting. Race and Gender are not the same things, but they both were factors that influenced civil liberties, just like homosexuality is doing today.

Sexual preference may be a different categorization than race or gender, but it is parallel to these groups in that it too is used as a justification to deny equal citizens of the United States certain civil rights.

Throughout history, people have found all manner of reasons to discriminate against one another: race, religion, sex, nationality, appearance (yes, the old Norse used to leave babies who were born imperfect’ with birth marks out to the elements to die, so as to keep a strong race).

Today, two people are being prevented from entering into a civil union based on their sexual preference. If the objection is about referring to that union marriage’, then the answer is to take it up with the church and attempt to grant churches the special right to deny whomsoever they see fit a marriage’ certificate but NOT their legitimate civil rights as Americans that are granted as a part of a union and as members of this country. Separate church and state.

So long as they are citizens of the United States who are being denied the exercising of this right, then the fundamental nature of the issue is no different than if they were denied based on the color of their hair, their genetic code, or their taste in ethnic food: they are still being discriminatorily refused one of the rights and opportunities that belong to all citizens of this country.

The argument is often trotted out that the Forefathers’ use of the word “marriage” indicates that they meant specifically between a man and a woman as it is in the bible’. By the same token, as it is in the bible’ perhaps they also meant that marriage can only occur with circumcised men?

The Forefathers’ built the government of our country and the documents upon which it is based as a living institution. They had the foresight to determine that they might not be able to anticipate every turn and change in society and the country.

They lived in a time period where Christian-defined marriage was the only type of union that society engaged in. At the time, there simply weren’t blacks, gays or genetically cloned segments of the population to consider when discussing marriage'; there was no situation which might prompt them to see the possible need to distinguish marriage from civil union for the words were synonymous. Today, they aren’t.

No one makes provisions for situations they never imagine existing to begin with.

I feel pretty safe in saying that the Forefathers also never imagined that one day the United States might have to have a legal battle over whether or not cloned babies get the same civil liberties as everyone else.

The point is that whatever the “Flavor of Discrimination” is this year, be it race, belief, sexual preference, gender, political party, artificially inseminated or natural’ babies, etc. it is still discrimination, and therefore EXACTLY the same as other related civil rights issues because it is the denial of citizen rights based on prejudice.