Justice in CA

The California decision to legitimize gay marriage highlights how important it is to approach the question of civil rights from a perspective of justice.  If one begins the question by asking whether a certain group deserves a set of rights, then one arrogates for himself the role of gatekeeper.  This perspective conflicts with the sense of entitlement that the self-appointed gatekeeper holds about his innate possession of those same rights. 

A perspective of justice asks not whether a certain group deserves a set of rights to bestowed upon them, rather it asks whether that group’s characteristics constitute a valid reason for discrimination.  Where society could in good conscience deny rights for cause, for instance stripping voting rights from felons, society should not find cause in birth; there is no original sin in citizenship.

From this perspective, it is impossible to declare that a person’s natural born condition is a reason for discrimination without risking the same rationale being applied to oneself.  Moreover, traditional allocations of rights are incomplete justifications for maintenance of disparate treatment.  As the California court wrote, citing its interracial marriage decision, “history alone is not invariably an appropriate guide determining the meaning and scope of this fundamental constitutional guarantee.”